Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: Bosco123 on September 30, 2010, 09:15:25 AM
-
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100929/ap_on_sc/us_sci_new_earths
Take us forever to get there though, but it's a nice thing to think that they finally found something out there, maybe that planet is looking at us.
<S>
-
cool :aok
-
It is about three times the mass of Earth, slightly larger in width and much closer to its star — 14 million miles away versus 93 million. It's so close to its version of the sun that it orbits every 37 days. And it doesn't rotate much, so one side is almost always bright, the other dark.
Temperatures can be as hot as 160 degrees or as frigid as 25 degrees below zero, but in between — in the land of constant sunrise — it would be "shirt-sleeve weather," said co-discoverer Steven Vogt of the University of California at Santa Cruz.
Oh noes, they found Sunside/Starside!! (please tell me I'm not the only person who caught/understands that...)
-
I need to get there to claim stake my land before manifest destiny kicks in.
-
Oh noes, they found Sunside/Starside!! (please tell me I'm not the only person who caught/understands that...)
right when they found it, the first things that came to my mind...
1) distance to sun (14 million)
2) rotation speed (very slow but not stationary... how does this sustain life? settlements would have to be constantly mobile. water would have to be also or it would evaporate)
3) atmosphere (honestly, with the speed of the rotation, there must not be much plant life or water, therefore an unsustainable atmosphere)
4) water (where is it? :lol )
5) size (3 times the mass of earth= approx 3 times the gravity, explorers/settlers will need to work out alot before even setting foot there)
then came the other questions
6) distance from us (yeah we arent getting there anytime soon)
7) animal life (land of constant sunrise could give us animal life or not. it depends on the answers to water and atmosphere in that area...)
8) diseases... (where theres plants and animals, there's bacteria and disease. we have no resistance to it at all. TERRAFORM TIME!!!)
9) time for us to get there... (see number 6)
10) would it be worth it...? (would it be worth the mass millions of dollars possibly billions to bring a group of explorers (or even a probe) that far out just to find out that this planet wouldnt be worth our eyes?
-
:noid
-
right when they found it, the first things that came to my mind...
2) rotation speed (very slow but not stationary... how does this sustain life? settlements would have to be constantly mobile. water would have to be also or it would evaporate)
as hot as 160 degrees. Thats close to temperatures recorded on some spots on our own planet. It doesnt mean its that hot all over the place (and its a much bigger world than ours). You can easily expect to find regions that have temperate or tropical temperatures.
3) atmosphere (honestly, with the speed of the rotation, there must not be much plant life or water, therefore an unsustainable atmosphere)
4) water (where is it? :lol )
5) size (3 times the mass of earth= approx 3 times the gravity, explorers/settlers will need to work out alot before even setting foot there)
rotation speed is not the same as centripetal speed. Aka, the outer ring of an old vynil disc spins faster than the center ring yet both cover the same distance in the same time. Rotation speed is not an issue.
water is almost guaranteed to exist in liquid form under that combination of temperature/mass. Of course thats if the planet followed something similar to earth's geologic processes and is not a sea of molten lava.
Gravity can be an issue but thats applicable if/when we can send someone there. by the time who knows what tech will exist to counteract that.
then came the other questions
7) animal life (land of constant sunrise could give us animal life or not. it depends on the answers to water and atmosphere in that area...)
10) would it be worth it...? (would it be worth the mass millions of dollars possibly billions to bring a group of explorers (or even a probe) that far out just to find out that this planet wouldnt be worth our eyes?
If there's water there will be life. Guaranteed. If life sprung up to use that water that is. Would it be worth sending a probe? Hell yes. 20 light years means our fastest ship would not be able to reach it in 200+ years time..and the first signal would take 20 years to get to us after that. If anything they should be scrambling to send that probe this decade. By 2200+ chances are we'll have much better propulsion to send people out there and the probe could very well be sending them a signal telling them 'hey there really IS water here! (or not)" and save them a more costly, dangerous trip.
-
I'll bet that's where the Aliens with the probes are coming from :O
-
20 light years means our fastest ship would not be able to reach it in 200+ years time..and the first signal would take 20 years to get to us after that. If anything they should be scrambling to send that probe this decade. By 2200+ chances are we'll have much better propulsion to send people out there and the probe could very well be sending a signal back to Earth saying 'hey there be humans here'.
Fixed for when we invent better propulsion and beat that original probe to the planet by a few decades. :D
-
We need to Ask VOSS has he has been there already when he was working for NASA....
or was that the CIA....
or the Russians...
I forgot
-
What if we are the Aliens? :noid
-
I'll bet that's where the Aliens with the probes are coming from :O
I wonder if they have people on their planet that will blame us, for anal probe adoptions....naaa, we will just blame it on george micheal.
-
By 2200+ chances are we'll have much better propulsion to send people out there and the probe could very well be sending them a signal telling them 'hey there really IS water here! (or not)" and save them a more costly, dangerous trip.
First thing we need to do is stop relying on exploratory vessels that HAVE to be launched from earth's surface. Develop spacecraft that are permanently based in space. Think of the massive amounts of fuel that are necessary JUST to get a rocket out of earth's atmosphere. You'll save a LOT of that weight with a spacecraft that just docks with the ISS for resupply before heading away from earth.
-
First thing we need to do is stop relying on exploratory vessels that HAVE to be launched from earth's surface. Develop spacecraft that are permanently based in space. Think of the massive amounts of fuel that are necessary JUST to get a rocket out of earth's atmosphere. You'll save a LOT of that weight with a spacecraft that just docks with the ISS for resupply before heading away from earth.
One itsy bitsy teeny weeny problem: raw materials.
There's no steel, aluminum, or copper in space, so even the most basic of electronics will need to be imported. Next, even if we could secure an massive asteroid filled with minerals, to achieve even simple alloys one needs heat and to achieve the nessecary heat and carbon atom freedom, one needs to burn carbonized coal. Combustion requires life-giving oxygen, which in turn would need to be ferried in to the ship to give air to the foundries.
No, without the ability to somehow use a railgun to shoot the stuff there, or Star Trek teleporters, the idea of a space shipyard doesn't add up practically or economically.
-Penguin
-
or a space elevator...
-
Well we COULD have built a base on the moon, sent the pre-assembled parts up, and had a mission to Mars 30 years ago if the aliens hadn't told us to stay off of it. Do you people not LISTEN to Coast to Coast? That's the only REAL news out there. Well that and the National Enquirer.
-
or a space elevator...
Sheesh now you're just being silly :D
-
You'se needs one of them moving stairs
-
right when they found it, the first things that came to my mind...
1) distance to sun (14 million)
2) rotation speed (very slow but not stationary... how does this sustain life? settlements would have to be constantly mobile. water would have to be also or it would evaporate)
3) atmosphere (honestly, with the speed of the rotation, there must not be much plant life or water, therefore an unsustainable atmosphere)
4) water (where is it? :lol )
5) size (3 times the mass of earth= approx 3 times the gravity, explorers/settlers will need to work out alot before even setting foot there)
then came the other questions
6) distance from us (yeah we arent getting there anytime soon)
7) animal life (land of constant sunrise could give us animal life or not. it depends on the answers to water and atmosphere in that area...)
8) diseases... (where theres plants and animals, there's bacteria and disease. we have no resistance to it at all. TERRAFORM TIME!!!)
9) time for us to get there... (see number 6)
10) would it be worth it...? (would it be worth the mass millions of dollars possibly billions to bring a group of explorers (or even a probe) that far out just to find out that this planet wouldnt be worth our eyes?
Your right probably not the best thing to be worrying about right now, but when our sun begins to deterriorate in about 10 billion years, then they can start to worry about were that can take us. Is it more important to find this stuff now, and let the future take us there or be scrambling for something we can live on in the way future?
And no we wouldn't have to be constantly moving, just have to stay on the top of the planet, which is probably only about a quarter of the planet, and use the rest for maybe resourses.
-
as hot as 160 degrees. Thats close to temperatures recorded on some spots on our own planet. It doesnt mean its that hot all over the place (and its a much bigger world than ours). You can easily expect to find regions that have temperate or tropical temperatures.
rotation speed is not the same as centripetal speed. Aka, the outer ring of an old vynil disc spins faster than the center ring yet both cover the same distance in the same time. Rotation speed is not an issue.
water is almost guaranteed to exist in liquid form under that combination of temperature/mass. Of course thats if the planet followed something similar to earth's geologic processes and is not a sea of molten lava.
Gravity can be an issue but thats applicable if/when we can send someone there. by the time who knows what tech will exist to counteract that.
If there's water there will be life. Guaranteed. If life sprung up to use that water that is. Would it be worth sending a probe? Hell yes. 20 light years means our fastest ship would not be able to reach it in 200+ years time..and the first signal would take 20 years to get to us after that. If anything they should be scrambling to send that probe this decade. By 2200+ chances are we'll have much better propulsion to send people out there and the probe could very well be sending them a signal telling them 'hey there really IS water here! (or not)" and save them a more costly, dangerous trip.
you dont seem to understand what i was getting at with the rotation...
160 degrees wont sustain water for long on the surface (the side direct towards the sun will force it to evaporate)...
this means that section of the planet is a desert and the opposite side is a frozen tundra due to the rainfall in the temperate regions being moved to the darkside. the temperate and tropical temperatures wont have water long enough for plant life to grow... the vegetation would need to be a mobile vegetation to constantly survive over the years. animal life is different... they can move, but plants would need a way to plant themselves around the planet over time of the rotation and if it rotates at just the wrong speed (not stationary because this will allow life easily or mobile like earth, theres a small area of speeds where rotation could not sustain life here.)
-
We have deserts on earth even WITHOUT being tidally locked.
A lot would have to do with the nature of the atmosphere, internal self-heating from the magnetic field and geological activity, the topography of the surface and, if there are liquid water oceans, the currents. If water from the "frozen" dark side cycles into the hemisphere tidally locked with the star that COULD help prevent all the water in that part of the surface from boiling or evaporating away. There may not be lakes, rivers, and other surface water bodies in the interior, but it doesn't rule out an ocean.
And there could CERTAINLY be liquid water on the dark side of the planet. It may be covered by ice sheets, but beneath--as in the Arctic here on earth--would be liquid water.
-
This planet is exactly like Douglas Adams' Hitch Hikers Guide to the Galaxy describes as 'holiday resort planet where the time has stuck eternally to the afternoon just before closing time'. A planet mostly consisting of sandy beaches and every house has a pool as a standard feature.
-
you dont seem to understand what i was getting at with the rotation...
I dont get it :headscratch:
-
Maybe they have Weapons of Mass Destruction or oil. Lets invade.
-
We need to Ask VOSS has he has been there already when he was working for NASA....
or was that the CIA....
or the Russians...
I forgot :rofl :rofl :rofl I Chalenge
you to find out which it is :aok Maybe it's both. And while yer at it ask him how his P-51 is, or how that was flying the only ME 109 still flyable.
<S> Oz
-
Cant wait until we meet them and trade recipes........... :D
-
hope their cookbook isn't titled 'How To Serve Man'
-
We have deserts on earth even WITHOUT being tidally locked.
A lot would have to do with the nature of the atmosphere, internal self-heating from the magnetic field and geological activity, the topography of the surface and, if there are liquid water oceans, the currents. If water from the "frozen" dark side cycles into the hemisphere tidally locked with the star that COULD help prevent all the water in that part of the surface from boiling or evaporating away. There may not be lakes, rivers, and other surface water bodies in the interior, but it doesn't rule out an ocean.
And there could CERTAINLY be liquid water on the dark side of the planet. It may be covered by ice sheets, but beneath--as in the Arctic here on earth--would be liquid water.
yes deserts are on earth. but even you know about the sahara theory right? the sahara used to be lush jungle before a flash heat from a breaking comet took it all out. the shards from this comet are all over the desert there. most of our deserts are in areas of no rainfall or in areas that are too hot and dry to sustain large quantities of surface water. none of these places are at the 160 degree level. the problem is is that once rainfall happens in the sunrise section of the planet, it will not have enough time for life to grow. because if the sunrise goes to daylight too fast for life to take hold, there will be no life. what i am saying is that to sustain life on the planet, it must rotate at a speed such as earth's, or move so slowly that the land of constant sunrise may take years before it hits the day side of the planet... if sunrise on the planet only lasts a few days to months (approximating for my point, i do not know the exact speed necessary to not sustain life) life cannot take hold. maybe bacterium that can survive in the extremes, but nothing more...
-
as hot as 160 degrees. Thats close to temperatures recorded on some spots on our own planet. It doesnt mean its that hot all over the place (and its a much bigger world than ours). You can easily expect to find regions that have temperate or tropical temperatures.
rotation speed is not the same as centripetal speed. Aka, the outer ring of an old vynil disc spins faster than the center ring yet both cover the same distance in the same time. Rotation speed is not an issue.
water is almost guaranteed to exist in liquid form under that combination of temperature/mass. Of course thats if the planet followed something similar to earth's geologic processes and is not a sea of molten lava.
Gravity can be an issue but thats applicable if/when we can send someone there. by the time who knows what tech will exist to counteract that.
If there's water there will be life. Guaranteed If life sprung up to use that water that is. Would it be worth sending a probe? Hell yes. 20 light years means our fastest ship would not be able to reach it in 200+ years time..and the first signal would take 20 years to get to us after that. If anything they should be scrambling to send that probe this decade. By 2200+ chances are we'll have much better propulsion to send people out there and the probe could very well be sending them a signal telling them 'hey there really IS water here! (or not)" and save them a more costly, dangerous trip.
Guaranteed?
First of all, there is not even a guarantee that there really is a planet there. If it's there, what real scientific evidence is there that it is solid and not gaseous? If it is solid (and located in a zone that will provide life sustaining temperatures - well life as we know it), what about the fact that nobody from this planet has anything but assumptions about what kind of weather/volcanism/earthquakes might be on a tidally locked planet. Computer modelling is not perfect and is invalid if there are conditions on the planet that haven't been figured into the equation. It's all just speculation. Everything they say about it is possible, but a hell of a long way from guaranteed. We absolutely should send something to check it out though.
As far as certainty or guarantees go, we are still discovering things in our own solar system like moons and planetary rings that we never knew existed. How can we possibly know anything about a planet that cannot even be detected - except by a gravitational pull on a star twenty light years away?
-
Your right probably not the best thing to be worrying about right now, but when our sun begins to deterriorate in about 10 billion years, then they can start to worry about were that can take us. Is it more important to find this stuff now, and let the future take us there or be scrambling for something we can live on in the way future?
And no we wouldn't have to be constantly moving, just have to stay on the top of the planet, which is probably only about a quarter of the planet, and use the rest for maybe resourses.
Correction: After just over 1 billion years, the extra solar energy input will cause Earth's oceans to evaporate and the hydrogen from the water to be lost permanently to space, with total loss of water by 3 billion years.[18] Earth's atmosphere and lithosphere will become like that of Venus. Over another billion years, most of the atmosphere will get lost in space as well;[15] ultimately leaving Earth as a desiccated, dead planet with a surface of molten rock.
Courtesy of: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_giant
And for you wikipediaphobes, references: 1.^ a b c d e Zeilik, Michael A.; Gregory, Stephan A. (1998). Introductory Astronomy & Astrophysics (4th ed.). Saunders College Publishing. pp. 321–322. ISBN 0030062284.
2.^ Color of star ranging blue through orange
3.^ Measurements of the frequency of starspots on red giant stars
4.^ orange sphere of the sun
5.^ The Cambridge Atlas of Astronomy (2nd ed.). Cambridge University Press. 1988. pp. 255. ISBN 0-521-36360-8.
6.^ Harvard University search for orange-yellow clumps
7.^ a b Sackmann, I.-Juliana; Boothroyd, Arnold I.; Kraemer, Kathleen E. (1993). "Our Sun. III. Present and Future" (PDF). Astrophysical Journal 418: 457. doi:10.1086/173407. http://articles.adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/nph-iarticle_query?1993ApJ...418..457S&data_type=PDF_HIGH&whole_paper=YES&type=PRINTER&filetype=.pdf. Retrieved 2008-07-23.
8.^ Pogge, Richard W. (2006-01-21). "Lecture 16: The Evolution of Low-Mass Stars". Astronomy 162: Introduction to Stars, Galaxies, & the Universe. http://www.astronomy.ohio-state.edu/~pogge/Ast162/Unit2/lowmass.html. Retrieved 2006-12-29.
9.^ "Main-Sequence Stars". Stars. The Astrophysics Spectator. 2005-02-16. http://www.astrophysicsspectator.com/topics/stars/MainSequence.html. Retrieved 2006-12-29.
10.^ Richmond, Michael. "Late stages of evolution for low-mass stars". http://spiff.rit.edu/classes/phys230/lectures/planneb/planneb.html. Retrieved 2006-12-29.
11.^ "Red Giants". HyperPhysics (hosted by the Department of Physics and Astronomy of Georgia State University). http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/astro/redgia.html. Retrieved 2006-12-29.
12.^ Strobel, Nick (2004-06-02). "Stages 5-7". Lives and Deaths of Stars. http://www.astronomynotes.com/evolutn/s5.htm. Retrieved 2006-12-29.
13.^ "The fading: red giants and white dwarfs". Free. http://nrumiano.free.fr/Estars/fading.html. Retrieved 2006-12-29.
14.^ Jones, Hilary (22 December 2006). "Clues to the death of our Solar System". COSMOS magazine (Sydney). http://www.cosmosmagazine.com/news/952/clues-death-our-solar-system.
15.^ a b Pogge, Richard W. (1997-06-13). "The Once and Future Sun". New Vistas in Astronomy. http://www-astronomy.mps.ohio-state.edu/~pogge/Lectures/vistas97.html. Retrieved 2007-01-23.
16.^ Hecht, Jeff (02 April 1994). "Fiery future for planet Earth". New Scientist (Boston) (1919). http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg14219191.900-science-fiery-future-for-planet-earth.html. Retrieved 2 July 2010.
17.^ Palmer, Jason (22 February 2008). "Hope dims that Earth will survive Sun's death". New Scientist. http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn13369?feedId=online-news_rss20.
18.^ Sun is a powerhouse - Death in our solar system
-Penguin
-
Correction: After just over 1 billion years, the extra solar energy input will cause Earth's oceans to evaporate and the hydrogen from the water to be lost permanently to space, with total loss of water by 3 billion years.[18] Earth's atmosphere and lithosphere will become like that of Venus. Over another billion years, most of the atmosphere will get lost in space as well;[15] ultimately leaving Earth as a desiccated, dead planet with a surface of molten rock.
Courtesy of: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_giant
And for you wikipediaphobes, references: 1.^ a b c d e Zeilik, Michael A.; Gregory, Stephan A. (1998). Introductory Astronomy & Astrophysics (4th ed.). Saunders College Publishing. pp. 321–322. ISBN 0030062284.
2.^ Color of star ranging blue through orange
3.^ Measurements of the frequency of starspots on red giant stars
4.^ orange sphere of the sun
5.^ The Cambridge Atlas of Astronomy (2nd ed.). Cambridge University Press. 1988. pp. 255. ISBN 0-521-36360-8.
6.^ Harvard University search for orange-yellow clumps
7.^ a b Sackmann, I.-Juliana; Boothroyd, Arnold I.; Kraemer, Kathleen E. (1993). "Our Sun. III. Present and Future" (PDF). Astrophysical Journal 418: 457. doi:10.1086/173407. http://articles.adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/nph-iarticle_query?1993ApJ...418..457S&data_type=PDF_HIGH&whole_paper=YES&type=PRINTER&filetype=.pdf. Retrieved 2008-07-23.
8.^ Pogge, Richard W. (2006-01-21). "Lecture 16: The Evolution of Low-Mass Stars". Astronomy 162: Introduction to Stars, Galaxies, & the Universe. http://www.astronomy.ohio-state.edu/~pogge/Ast162/Unit2/lowmass.html. Retrieved 2006-12-29.
9.^ "Main-Sequence Stars". Stars. The Astrophysics Spectator. 2005-02-16. http://www.astrophysicsspectator.com/topics/stars/MainSequence.html. Retrieved 2006-12-29.
10.^ Richmond, Michael. "Late stages of evolution for low-mass stars". http://spiff.rit.edu/classes/phys230/lectures/planneb/planneb.html. Retrieved 2006-12-29.
11.^ "Red Giants". HyperPhysics (hosted by the Department of Physics and Astronomy of Georgia State University). http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/astro/redgia.html. Retrieved 2006-12-29.
12.^ Strobel, Nick (2004-06-02). "Stages 5-7". Lives and Deaths of Stars. http://www.astronomynotes.com/evolutn/s5.htm. Retrieved 2006-12-29.
13.^ "The fading: red giants and white dwarfs". Free. http://nrumiano.free.fr/Estars/fading.html. Retrieved 2006-12-29.
14.^ Jones, Hilary (22 December 2006). "Clues to the death of our Solar System". COSMOS magazine (Sydney). http://www.cosmosmagazine.com/news/952/clues-death-our-solar-system.
15.^ a b Pogge, Richard W. (1997-06-13). "The Once and Future Sun". New Vistas in Astronomy. http://www-astronomy.mps.ohio-state.edu/~pogge/Lectures/vistas97.html. Retrieved 2007-01-23.
16.^ Hecht, Jeff (02 April 1994). "Fiery future for planet Earth". New Scientist (Boston) (1919). http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg14219191.900-science-fiery-future-for-planet-earth.html. Retrieved 2 July 2010.
17.^ Palmer, Jason (22 February 2008). "Hope dims that Earth will survive Sun's death". New Scientist. http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn13369?feedId=online-news_rss20.
18.^ Sun is a powerhouse - Death in our solar system
-Penguin
More speculation stated as facts. "At just over a billion years.." :rolleyes: Why not just under a billion years? These guys can't even accurately predict the weather two days from now and yet steadfastly state their theories as absolute truth. Take it all with a grain of salt.
-
*note to all forum users*
The above two posts support my theory that the Mayan calendar stopped in Dec of 2012 because the map maker had the epiphany that nobody he knew or cared about would be alive on that date. So he tossed his tools and went searching for a hot babe and a fishing hole.
As you were :bolt:
-
More speculation stated as facts. "At just over a billion years.." :rolleyes: Why not just under a billion years? These guys can't even accurately predict the weather two days from now and yet steadfastly state their theories as absolute truth. Take it all with a grain of salt.
it seems you have a deep and fundamental misunderstanding of science. there was a long topic which could help you understand this stuff, just search for "a posteriori" :aok
-
My understanding is that science is the pursuit of facts. Scientific "facts" have been overturned again and again by new "facts" for hundreds of years. All the research and calculations no matter how ingenious, are not proof that these doomsday scenarios are going to take place. I have no problem with their ideas as long as they express that they are only ideas. The all-knowing arrogance of claiming that such and such is going to happen in just over a billion years raises no red flag with you?
Just go on mocking the skeptics as fools instead of proving what you say is true. The one fact in all of this is you can no more prove this stuff than I can disprove it, which is my whole point. It is all only scientific theory, yet the word theory is rarely used anymore. These guys know exactly what's 20 light years away as well as what will happen in just over a billion years. :rolleyes:
-
Science is not a pursuit of facts. Sometimes facts are a product of science, but science is a tool that effectively allows us to refine our understanding how the universe we live in works.
-
More speculation stated as facts. "At just over a billion years.." :rolleyes: Why not just under a billion years? These guys can't even accurately predict the weather two days from now and yet steadfastly state their theories as absolute truth. Take it all with a grain of salt.
These are not your average weathermen your talking about, that's a guarantee..... :D
They are the sharpest minds in this field of science and you can bet that they are not far off from their theories, sort of like a target,,, maybe not dead center, but in the 10 ring for sure.
-
ahhhh nevermind
-
Science is not a pursuit of facts. Sometimes facts are a product of science, but science is a tool that effectively allows us to refine our understanding how the universe we live in works.
What facts of science were produced with out pursuit?
-
yes deserts are on earth. but even you know about the sahara theory right? the sahara used to be lush jungle before a flash heat from a breaking comet took it all out. the shards from this comet are all over the desert there. most of our deserts are in areas of no rainfall or in areas that are too hot and dry to sustain large quantities of surface water. none of these places are at the 160 degree level. the problem is is that once rainfall happens in the sunrise section of the planet, it will not have enough time for life to grow. because if the sunrise goes to daylight too fast for life to take hold, there will be no life. what i am saying is that to sustain life on the planet, it must rotate at a speed such as earth's, or move so slowly that the land of constant sunrise may take years before it hits the day side of the planet... if sunrise on the planet only lasts a few days to months (approximating for my point, i do not know the exact speed necessary to not sustain life) life cannot take hold. maybe bacterium that can survive in the extremes, but nothing more...
Actually, the theories I've seen are that the Sahara's dryness is cyclical and has gone through several wet and dry periods. The drying is largely believed to be a result of changing patterns in the monsoon, which used to extend further north than it does today.
-
Fellas, we, the human race, will not be visiting any extra solar planets until we, the human race, has progressed to a Kardashev Type 1 civilization or a little further to a Type 2 level. Until the scientific community creates a technology that can turn energy into matter, we, the human race, are staying put within the solar system specifically within the inner planetary system.
By having the means of turning raw energy into raw matter, the scarcity of natural resources will be eliminated. Vast construction projects will create the future of tomorrow envisioned by artists and scientists of the last century.
After achieving that small feat, the next step will be creating a power source greater than the energy output of a star and beyond.
Then, the easy parts will be a ship, propulsion system, and shielding. Piece of cake work there.
The final act of this adventure will be creating an artificial gravity/interial dampener system. Why accelerate our future heroes off to the "Goldilocks Planet" if they are turned into goo on the back wall of the room they are in at the instant of ignition? Plus, they need to be walking around under gravity to keep them bones strong.
-
Think i'm gonna watch "Contact" again.
I read about this last month.
tis kewl. :cool:
-
To think that the Sun isn't going to heat up and boil the oceans away in around a billion years really isn't debatable, like Caldera said, these are the smartest scientific minds in the world who are saying this, I think it's pretty safe to say they know what their talking about, but we don't need to worry about it anyways, who really thinks the human race will survive long enough for it to even be an issue, long long long before that something will take our race out and we'll become extinct like the dino's, but there might be some other type of intelligent life here by then that might need to worry about it, but I think it's safe to say it won't be us.
-
To think that the Sun isn't going to heat up and boil the oceans away in around a billion years really isn't debatable, like Caldera said, these are the smartest scientific minds in the world who are saying this, I think it's pretty safe to say they know what their talking about, but we don't need to worry about it anyways, who really thinks the human race will survive long enough for it to even be an issue, long long long before that something will take our race out and we'll become extinct like the dino's, but there might be some other type of intelligent life here by then that might need to worry about it, but I think it's safe to say it won't be us.
I have read some theories that as the sun increases in size and intensity that it may just push the orbits of planets outward, keeping earth within its habitable zone.
But yeah, I wouldn't count on us being around to see it....
-
Take us forever to get there though
you think so? its only 20ly away (proxima centauri our closest neighbour is about 4.2ly away).
sounds like a long way but it really isnt. take a space ship that accelerates at 1g up to the midway point, then decelerates at 1g to destination (so the astronauts get to experience familiar earthlike gravity for the entire trip).
any guesses on how long the trip takes for the astronauts?
and how much time has passed on earth by the time they get back?
:headscratch: :D
-
ok ... not an easy question to answer. :uhoh
time to get to nearest star proxima centauri, 4.3ly:
3.6yr astronaut time, 6yr earth time.
time to get to Gliese 581, 20ly:
6yr astronaut time, 22yr earth time.
what about fuel? well assuming we're using some kind of propulsion system that converts fuel mass into energy at 100% efficiency, to get to proxima centauri requires a fuel/payload ratio of ~40. (Saturn V ratio for the lunar landings was ~50.)
to get to Gliese 581 however requires a ratio of ~500. remember the Nostromo from the alien movie? thats roughly what it could look like. if you replace what it was towing with fuel ("an ore refinery and 20m tonnes of ore"), you get about the same ratio :D
-
What you really need is a dual-purpose drive, one that has high specific impulse for fuel efficient cruise (IE, ion rockets) but capable of a high thrust output for quick acceleration (something akin to the SABRE precooled turborocket). Maybe an ion rocket for cruise with a SABRE afterburner for escape velocity and rapid acceleration.
-
And pie. We'll need to bring a gift. I'm thinking cherry.(http://img718.imageshack.us/img718/6444/scratchchin.gif) (http://img718.imageshack.us/i/scratchchin.gif/)
-
And pie. We'll need to bring a gift. I'm thinking cherry.(http://img718.imageshack.us/img718/6444/scratchchin.gif) (http://img718.imageshack.us/i/scratchchin.gif/)
naa. Pies go bad.
Bring em some fruitcake instead. They seem to last forever.
-
What you really need is a dual-purpose drive, one that has high specific impulse for fuel efficient cruise (IE, ion rockets) but capable of a high thrust output for quick acceleration (something akin to the SABRE precooled turborocket). Maybe an ion rocket for cruise with a SABRE afterburner for escape velocity and rapid acceleration.
well cruise for a spacecraft is unpowered so no engines required for that. but it is quicker to accelerate fast then cruise than to use constant acceleration (more time spent near c, so you get more of the relativistic benefits of time/distance contraction).
for constant 1g acceleration the whole trip to Gliese 581 takes 6yr/22yr.
using the same fuel/payload ratio as above you can burn at 2g for 5ly, cruise for 10ly then decel at 2g for the last 5ly, in which case the trip to Gliese 581 takes 3.91yr/21yr.
point is that return trips to our nearest stars are completely feasible (and quick for the astronauts), and could be completed within the lifetime of an earth observer. and this is using inertial drives - no worm holes, subspace, gravity rails, FTL etc. just using developments of existing technology (ion drives, GRASERs etc.)
like the lunar trips, this is essentially just an engineering and resources challenge :)
-
well cruise for a spacecraft is unpowered so no engines required for that. but it is quicker to accelerate fast then cruise than to use constant acceleration (more time spent near c, so you get more of the relativistic benefits of time/distance contraction).
It's a matter of fuel efficiency. The problem is getting high /sp (fuel efficiency) with high thrust (acceleration). Nuclear pulse could probably do it, but because of the problems you get into dealing with nuclear fusion it may not be all that practical.
What I meant by "cruise" is a more efficient means of acceleration. A high /sp engine for deep-space acceleration, with a less efficient but more powerful means of propulsion for certain maneuvers and atmospheric flight (ion engines wouldn't work in atmosphere).
-
yup just an engineering problem, and we have a good record of solving them :D
-
Actually, the theories I've seen are that the Sahara's dryness is cyclical and has gone through several wet and dry periods. The drying is largely believed to be a result of changing patterns in the monsoon, which used to extend further north than it does today.
ive also seen this. but the problem is is that with the theory i stated there is actually proof that an event that includes a flash heat is entirely plausible. this mineral spread across the sahara and into Asia Minor has a dating to the time of the drying of the sahara and also the effect of extreme burning on them. i need to find the info again...
-
It doesn't mean an impact DIDN'T happen, just that it's not necessarily a factor in the Sahara drying out since other geological evidence shows that the Sahara has wet and dry cycles (for one, the Sahara aquifer itself still exists, however geological changes since the last wet period cut it off from the surface).
There's also the reality that earth has suffered several severe (arguably even more extreme) impacts that aren't connected to desertification of the area in which it occurred. A good comparison is the Tunguska Event, which despite SUBSTANTIAL damage to the surface it's taken only a century for the environment to recover (and before anyone gets cute because it's in Russia: "desert" is defined by a lack of precipitation, NOT a hot climate. The largest desert in the world is actually Antarctica). For an impact event to have formed the Sahara, it would have HAD to have disrupted the weather patterns themselves. Doesn't matter if the entire continent was burned to the ground, as long as rain returned to the area vegetation would recover.
Furthermore, the Sahara is also showing signs of returning to a wet period ("green" regions have expanded northward significantly since 1982).
-
It doesn't mean an impact DIDN'T happen, just that it's not necessarily a factor in the Sahara drying out since other geological evidence shows that the Sahara has wet and dry cycles (for one, the Sahara aquifer itself still exists, however geological changes since the last wet period cut it off from the surface).
There's also the reality that earth has suffered several severe (arguably even more extreme) impacts that aren't connected to desertification of the area in which it occurred. A good comparison is the Tunguska Event, which despite SUBSTANTIAL damage to the surface it's taken only a century for the environment to recover (and before anyone gets cute because it's in Russia: "desert" is defined by a lack of precipitation, NOT a hot climate. The largest desert in the world is actually Antarctica). For an impact event to have formed the Sahara, it would have HAD to have disrupted the weather patterns themselves. Doesn't matter if the entire continent was burned to the ground, as long as rain returned to the area vegetation would recover.
Furthermore, the Sahara is also showing signs of returning to a wet period ("green" regions have expanded northward significantly since 1982).
agreed on all parts except that tundra more specifically defines Antarctica :P
but they also believe that the sahara incident was so hot that it flash fried all life... there was no way things could regrow. they believe that the incident if reoccuring today would melt a city without an impact. the comet split up in the upper atmosphere but so many fragments hit the atmosphere at the same time that it actually lit the atmosphere in the area on fire itself...
-
agreed on all parts except that tundra more specifically defines Antarctica :P
There is Antarctic tundra on some of the islands, but the continent itself IS considered a true desert based on precipitation levels.
I've heard there's evidence of a comet impact or airburst, but nothing ever pointing to it as the "smoking gun" even in recent research. Everything I've seen still points to the natural wet/dry cycles and changes to the Monsoon patterns.
-
There is Antarctic tundra on some of the islands, but the continent itself IS considered a true desert based on precipitation levels.
I've heard there's evidence of a comet impact or airburst, but nothing ever pointing to it as the "smoking gun" even in recent research. Everything I've seen still points to the natural wet/dry cycles and changes to the Monsoon patterns.
ok. ill give you that one.
-
for constant 1g acceleration the whole trip to Gliese 581 takes 6yr/22yr.
using the same fuel/payload ratio as above you can burn at 2g for 5ly, cruise for 10ly then decel at 2g for the last 5ly, in which case the trip to Gliese 581 takes 3.91yr/21yr.
If I'm not mistaken, you need roughly 168 days of constant 2g acceleration to reach 0,95 c. That would roughly mean that in less than a years time and thus less than a ly in dictance you can acclerate and decellerate, and cruise for more than 20 ly.
-
hmm I think you've missed something quite important in yr calcs there.
hint: how fast are you after 200 days of 2g?
-
or a space elevator...
Space elevators would suck, would you want to be forced to listen to elevator muzak for that long?
ack-ack
-
you think so? its only 20ly away (proxima centauri our closest neighbour is about 4.2ly away).
sounds like a long way but it really isnt. take a space ship that accelerates at 1g up to the midway point, then decelerates at 1g to destination (so the astronauts get to experience familiar earthlike gravity for the entire trip).
any guesses on how long the trip takes for the astronauts?
and how much time has passed on earth by the time they get back?
:headscratch: :D
I bet Han Solo can make the run in less than 12 parsecs.
ack-ack
-
If I'm not mistaken, you need roughly 168 days of constant 2g acceleration to reach 0,95 c. That would roughly mean that in less than a years time and thus less than a ly in dictance you can acclerate and decellerate, and cruise for more than 20 ly.
nevermind asnwere my own question.
-
These are not your average weathermen your talking about, that's a guarantee..... :D
They are the sharpest minds in this field of science and you can bet that they are not far off from their theories, sort of like a target,,, maybe not dead center, but in the 10 ring for sure.
This here is a faulty appeal to authority and a fallacy within your argument.
Show me any evidence the "Sharpest minds " have then we can see how close they are to their theories.
-
Fellas, we, the human race, will not be visiting any extra solar planets until we, the human race, has progressed to a Kardashev Type 1 civilization or a little further to a Type 2 level. Until the scientific community creates a technology that can turn energy into matter, we, the human race, are staying put within the solar system specifically within the inner planetary system.
By having the means of turning raw energy into raw matter, the scarcity of natural resources will be eliminated. Vast construction projects will create the future of tomorrow envisioned by artists and scientists of the last century.
After achieving that small feat, the next step will be creating a power source greater than the energy output of a star and beyond.
Then, the easy parts will be a ship, propulsion system, and shielding. Piece of cake work there.
The final act of this adventure will be creating an artificial gravity/interial dampener system. Why accelerate our future heroes off to the "Goldilocks Planet" if they are turned into goo on the back wall of the room they are in at the instant of ignition? Plus, they need to be walking around under gravity to keep them bones strong.
ummm... I don't think we'll last that long left to our own devices. :frown:
Regards,
Sun
-
Space elevators would suck, would you want to be forced to listen to elevator muzak for that long?
ack-ack
maglev rails for the elevators. get from bottom to top in an hour... also if the construction is to work, you will need a space support that lessens the load on the elevator shaft itself. this will allow for increased size in the elevator and allow for faster travel. free fall should be allowed for travel back down the shaft. bam, works fine :aok
-
maglev rails for the elevators. get from bottom to top in an hour... also if the construction is to work, you will need a space support that lessens the load on the elevator shaft itself. this will allow for increased size in the elevator and allow for faster travel. free fall should be allowed for travel back down the shaft. bam, works fine :aok
Still, would you want to be stuck in an elevator and forced to listen to muzak for an hour? I know I don't.
ack-ack
-
Still, would you want to be stuck in an elevator and forced to listen to muzak for an hour? I know I don't.
ack-ack
who says it will just be an elevator? if its large enough turn it into a lounge and a snack bar. put tvs in it. then have work only cars with resources for projects and other necessities. one car for passengers that fit approx 100 people or more and one car for work to fit the equivalent (or more) in supplies (say 20,000 to 50,000 lbs of weight.
-
as hot as 160 degrees. Thats close to temperatures recorded on some spots on our own planet. It doesnt mean its that hot all over the place (and its a much bigger world than ours). You can easily expect to find regions that have temperate or tropical temperatures.
rotation speed is not the same as centripetal speed. Aka, the outer ring of an old vynil disc spins faster than the center ring yet both cover the same distance in the same time. Rotation speed is not an issue.
water is almost guaranteed to exist in liquid form under that combination of temperature/mass. Of course thats if the planet followed something similar to earth's geologic processes and is not a sea of molten lava.
Gravity can be an issue but thats applicable if/when we can send someone there. by the time who knows what tech will exist to counteract that.
If there's water there will be life. Guaranteed. If life sprung up to use that water that is. Would it be worth sending a probe? Hell yes. 20 light years means our fastest ship would not be able to reach it in 200+ years time..and the first signal would take 20 years to get to us after that. If anything they should be scrambling to send that probe this decade. By 2200+ chances are we'll have much better propulsion to send people out there and the probe could very well be sending them a signal telling them 'hey there really IS water here! (or not)" and save them a more costly, dangerous trip.
One light year is 186,000 X 60 X 60 X 24 X 365 miles.
That's a total of 5,865,696,000,000 miles traveled in one year at the speed of light in the vacuum of space..
The fastest space probe that man has built is currently Voyager 1 which is traveling at 38,600 mph (light travels at 180,000 miles per second, just to put things into perspective)..
I don't think I need to do any more math to show you that there's no way anything man-made can make it 20 light years in anything close to 200 years..
I'll say it's in the ball park of 150,000 to 200,000 years to get there while traveling 38,600 mph..
The distances are so vast and time to get there so great that any probe sent now would be long dead by the time it reached even the same general area(with regards to the vastness of space)..
Personally, I don't think Earth(as we know it) will make it far enough into the future to develop something that will travel even 1/100 the speed of light..
-
I bet Han Solo can make the run in less than 12 parsecs.
ack-ack
:lol :aok
-
One light year is 186,000 X 60 X 60 X 24 X 365 miles.
That's a total of 5,865,696,000,000 miles traveled in one year at the speed of light in the vacuum of space..
The fastest space probe that man has built is currently Voyager 1 which is traveling at 38,600 mph (light travels at 180,000 miles per second, just to put things into perspective)..
I don't think I need to do any more math to show you that there's no way anything man-made can make it 20 light years in anything close to 200 years..
I'll say it's in the ball park of 150,000 to 200,000 years to get there while traveling 38,600 mph..
The distances are so vast and time to get there so great that any probe sent now would be long dead by the time it reached even the same general area(with regards to the vastness of space)..
Personally, I don't think Earth(as we know it) will make it far enough into the future to develop something that will travel even 1/100 the speed of light..
Yeah I was wondering just how they were thinking we could reach these near by stars in just a couple years time, I mean we might be able to in a few hundred years when we develop the technology to travel at speeds near the speed of light, but thats still a very long way away.
-
I can't wait to get there and mutilate some of their cows
-
well, tell a 1940 WWII U-boat commander that in 20yrs time submarines would only need refuelling every 25yrs and they could remain submerged for as long as the food supplies last and he wouldnt have believed you.
the theory and technology were all pretty much there, it was just a matter of refining them enough to create the real-world application and setting up the resources infrastructure. this is where we are with interstellar travel.