Do you have adblock enabled?
 
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(io9)   Ten myths about space travel. Article was submitted tomorrow and needs to be greenlit to avoid fatal time paradox   (io9.com ) divider line
    More: Interesting, time paradox, spaceflights, Death from the Skies, faster than light, laws of physics, time dilations, asteroid belt, artificial gravity  
•       •       •

9403 clicks; posted to Geek » on 22 Aug 2012 at 7:48 PM (4 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



245 Comments     (+0 »)
 
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest
 
2012-08-22 06:41:19 PM  
TFA: "And you'll notice that on shows like Star Trek, when life support and power are turned off, artificial gravity somehow always keeps working."


Really?


s13.postimage.org
upload picture
 
2012-08-22 06:56:03 PM  
None of those things seem to be "myths" -- with the exception of the spacing issue (# 5).

They just seem to be things that are impossible with current technology -- but science fiction writers assume we'll solve sometime in the future.
 
2012-08-22 07:29:25 PM  
Hey, it worked!
 
2012-08-22 07:31:49 PM  
*looks at photo*

phew

/subby
 
2012-08-22 07:33:50 PM  
If you hit Alt-F4 you can travel back in time a couple minutes.
 
2012-08-22 07:52:58 PM  
images1.wikia.nocookie.net
 
2012-08-22 07:53:10 PM  
#11 - Gravity is the same (1 G) on every planet.

And a fun fact: There was no FTL in the Firefly universe.


UberDave: TFA: "And you'll notice that on shows like Star Trek, when life support and power are turned off, artificial gravity somehow always keeps working."

Really?

[s13.postimage.org image 320x240]
upload picture


Should have read the whole entry:

(With the exception of Star Trek VI, of course.)
 
2012-08-22 07:59:04 PM  
Myths? How much space travel did they do to research this?
 
2012-08-22 07:59:15 PM  
That's why it's called science fiction, dumbarticlewriter.
 
2012-08-22 08:00:45 PM  
8) Cheap energy is readily available

There's a Charles Stross book (Glasshouse, I think) that gets around this (and the ray gun thing) in a fun way: the protagonist uses a weapon that opens a wormhole that links it to the inside of a star to generate the weapon's beam.

Of course that will just start an argument about wormholes...
 
2012-08-22 08:01:50 PM  
I think there's some Trek technobabble that addresses each of those.
 
2012-08-22 08:01:59 PM  

UberDave: TFA: "And you'll notice that on shows like Star Trek, when life support and power are turned off, artificial gravity somehow always keeps working."


Really?


[s13.postimage.org image 320x240]
upload picture


It's really a shame you couldn't read one more sentence.

And you'll notice that on shows like Star Trek, when life support and power are turned off, artificial gravity somehow always keeps working. (With the exception of Star Trek VI, of course.)
 
2012-08-22 08:02:30 PM  

fusillade762: #11 - Gravity is the same (1 G) on every planet.

And a fun fact: There was no FTL in the Firefly universe.


UberDave: TFA: "And you'll notice that on shows like Star Trek, when life support and power are turned off, artificial gravity somehow always keeps working."

Really?

[s13.postimage.org image 320x240]
upload picture

Should have read the whole entry:

(With the exception of Star Trek VI, of course.)


Obvious reason is because they were all filmed on earth. Live action has its limitations.
CGI and anime tend to be more scientifically accurate.

dl.dropbox.com

dl.dropbox.com

/When they feel like it.
/Because they can be wildly and amazingly inaccurate when the plot calls for it too.
 
2012-08-22 08:02:49 PM  

Handsome B. Wonderful: Myths? How much space travel did they do to research this?


They had to work very hard to make Cracked seem like a bastion of informed and well-researched articles.
 
2012-08-22 08:03:30 PM  
Author of TFA is right about the "gravity pump" or whatever you wanna call it still working even when the life support, propulsion, and communication is all down.
 
2012-08-22 08:03:48 PM  
#3 You can stop and start without worrying about inertia

They created inertial dampeners to explain why the acceleration and deceleration don't send people flying. Now if you want to say that inertial dampeners don't exist... fine, but pretend like they don't explain it.
 
2012-08-22 08:06:20 PM  

Oldiron_79: Author of TFA is right about the "gravity pump" or whatever you wanna call it still working even when the life support, propulsion, and communication is all down.


You'll notice that they also usually have lighting as well.
It seems humans in several scifi universes value gravity and mood lighting more than life support when things have gone bad.
 
2012-08-22 08:07:11 PM  
Up next: 10 myths about air travel, by physicists of the 1880s.

Seriously though, not one of these was a myth about space travel. They're all about sci-fi movie tropes that are necessary to filming a drama here on Earth. Furthermore, "myth" generally implies something is widely believed. I don't think anyone is laboring under the illusion that FTL travel is possible without new physics.

I was expecting to see stuff like "your blood boils in space." (It does, but only if it's outside your body.)
 
2012-08-22 08:11:49 PM  

tomcatadam: Oldiron_79: Author of TFA is right about the "gravity pump" or whatever you wanna call it still working even when the life support, propulsion, and communication is all down.

You'll notice that they also usually have lighting as well.
It seems humans in several scifi universes value gravity and mood lighting more than life support when things have gone bad.


The funny thing is, I'm pretty sure lighting and gravity are life support systems. They never seem to indicate exactly what "life support" is, or why you'll die when it's disabled. Is it the atmosphere recycling system? If so, why don't they have CO2 scrubber masks that people can put on? And furthermore, how can gravity generators require less power than some fans and filters?
 
2012-08-22 08:12:37 PM  
I think if you have artificial gravity you can make up some treknobabble pretty easily about the lack of inertia when turning or accelerating/decelerating and yet still feeling the impacts of incoming weaponry.

Also explains how Scalosian bras work.
 
2012-08-22 08:15:12 PM  
static4.depositphotos.com

But but but the species and magic materials and like exploring and science! WAAHHHHHHHHHHHH!
 
2012-08-22 08:15:23 PM  
Risen Empire

Not 'great', but has a more interesting take on technology and science.

Messing with time makes for humanity taking a... back seat. We simply don't live long enough for that kind of more practical application of science to make this stuff compelling without the time-element held up as 'the' theme.
 
2012-08-22 08:17:45 PM  

Cinaed: We simply don't live long enough for that kind of more practical application of science


We don't? But I'm chairman of the Human Life Shortening project. Short life is what gives life meaning and makes you want to do things!!!
 
2012-08-22 08:23:24 PM  
A question for physicists: how is time dilation compatible with theory of general relativity? If I travel away from earth at close to the speed of light, and then turn around and travel back to earth at close to the speed of light, supposedly hundreds of years will have passed on earth, and I will be in the future. But who is to say that I didn't stay put, and it was the earth that was traveling? What is the absolute reference point in the universe against which motion is calculated for the purpose of time dilation?
 
2012-08-22 08:24:33 PM  
Did the author use a time machine to visit 2300+? If not, then facts about what's currently possible or known to be possible are not meaningful.
 
2012-08-22 08:27:06 PM  
7) Ray guns can actually disintegrate someone

i'd love it if someone made a film with invisible (no red flashes) blasters.

and the only sounds they make are the objects they hit sizzling and spluttering in a myriad of different ways instead of the universal "pew" "pew" "pew"

imagine someone getting hit right in the head, and seeing nothing but a small puff of steam and maybe a bit of smoke coming out of a freshly exploded eye socket.
 
2012-08-22 08:27:33 PM  
Meh, better link of myths about space travel.
 
2012-08-22 08:28:09 PM  
FTA: 9. You can travel at the speed of light and no time passes elsewhere

Yeah, about that -- Star Trek directly addresses this one by explaining that warp drive travels through space AND time. That way you can travel faster than the speed of light without arriving before you left, hence preserving causality (and making the show a lot easier to understand.)
 
2012-08-22 08:35:15 PM  

Tommy Moo: A question for physicists: how is time dilation compatible with theory of general relativity? If I travel away from earth at close to the speed of light, and then turn around and travel back to earth at close to the speed of light, supposedly hundreds of years will have passed on earth, and I will be in the future. But who is to say that I didn't stay put, and it was the earth that was traveling? What is the absolute reference point in the universe against which motion is calculated for the purpose of time dilation?


There isn't any absolute reference point. To simplify it hugely, the time differential comes because you underwent the acceleration to near c, and the earth did not. It seems reciprocal until you realize that only one end sees the induced gravity effect of acceleration. If the earth accelerated more, it would be the one going into the future.
 
2012-08-22 08:36:06 PM  
Sure, cheap energy is often readily available, but sometimes it ends up being slow-moving mineral-like ancient beings who actually founded the galaxy and are really pissed off that you're using them as spaceship fuel.
 
2012-08-22 08:38:31 PM  

Tommy Moo: A question for physicists: how is time dilation compatible with theory of general relativity? If I travel away from earth at close to the speed of light, and then turn around and travel back to earth at close to the speed of light, supposedly hundreds of years will have passed on earth, and I will be in the future. But who is to say that I didn't stay put, and it was the earth that was traveling? What is the absolute reference point in the universe against which motion is calculated for the purpose of time dilation?


I think that there is no absolute reference, it's all relative...that's the point.

I'm not a physicist but I slept at a Holiday Inn last night
 
2012-08-22 08:43:02 PM  

thrasherrr: Tommy Moo: A question for physicists: how is time dilation compatible with theory of general relativity? If I travel away from earth at close to the speed of light, and then turn around and travel back to earth at close to the speed of light, supposedly hundreds of years will have passed on earth, and I will be in the future. But who is to say that I didn't stay put, and it was the earth that was traveling? What is the absolute reference point in the universe against which motion is calculated for the purpose of time dilation?

There isn't any absolute reference point. To simplify it hugely, the time differential comes because you underwent the acceleration to near c, and the earth did not. It seems reciprocal until you realize that only one end sees the induced gravity effect of acceleration. If the earth accelerated more, it would be the one going into the future.


So the arbitration would have to do with the fact that an outside force acted on me, but not the earth? That I can accept. This was really bothering me for a while!
 
2012-08-22 08:47:19 PM  
Tommy Moo: A question for physicists: how is time dilation compatible with theory of general relativity? If I travel away from earth at close to the speed of light, and then turn around and travel back to earth at close to the speed of light, supposedly hundreds of years will have passed on earth, and I will be in the future. But who is to say that I didn't stay put, and it was the earth that was traveling? What is the absolute reference point in the universe against which motion is calculated for the purpose of time dilation?

Dictionary, use it.
 
2012-08-22 08:48:28 PM  
#3 You can stop and start without worrying about inertia

i.imgur.com

i.imgur.com

He didn't worry about inertia
 
2012-08-22 08:53:36 PM  

Tommy Moo: But who is to say that I didn't stay put, and it was the earth that was traveling?


You're the one who's saying you didn't stay put, actually.

Short answer: The difference between you and the Earth is that you are, by your own admission, changing reference frames. You go out, your turn around, and then you come back. As it turns out, it really doesn't matter how slowly or quickly you do this; you can no longer say that you're standing still while the Earth was moving.

Because you're going some distance out and then presumably turning around, the problem no longer becomes you + earth. The problem becomes you + earth-and-wherever-you-decide-to-turn-around; and whenever you have to consider multiple points in a single reference frame, things change. The relevant change here is a slightly less well known effect of relativity in which clocks that were synchronized at rest now lose synchronization when in apparent motion. This ultimately causes your turnaround point to jump farther ahead in time during your voyage out, and it causes the earth to jump even farther ahead than that during your return trip, even though both clocks do indeed appear to tick more slowly than your own.

Seems counter-intuitive at first, but the traveler (you) will agree that the earth is now many years ahead of you by the time the you return.

If you wish, I can give you a much more thorough answer (with negligible amounts of math) once I'm finished with work for the day.
 
2012-08-22 08:55:04 PM  
MrEricSir: FTA: 9. You can travel at the speed of light and no time passes elsewhere

Yeah, about that -- Star Trek directly addresses this one by explaining that warp drive travels through space AND time. That way you can travel faster than the speed of light without arriving before you left, hence preserving causality (and making the show a lot easier to understand.)


More simply, it bends the universe around itself, hence the "warp bubble". Same idea as a worm hole.

There's no movement involved, and thus no relativity to break.

Truth be told nBSG did FTL better with their instantaneous jumps. If you have the power to control space-time, it seems warping space would be easy and instantaneous. You wouldn't "travel" like in Trek. But the problem is knowing where and what you're jumping into. You could jump across the universe, but good luck that you don't jump into a sun accidentally. Better to take smaller jumps with coordinates precisely plotted out.
 
2012-08-22 08:59:46 PM  
Has anyone pointed out that these are not myths, per se, but a list of things sci-fi audiences are willing to suspend disbelief about?
 
2012-08-22 09:01:31 PM  
The author of this article must be fun at parties.
 
2012-08-22 09:05:27 PM  

MrEricSir: FTA: 9. You can travel at the speed of light and no time passes elsewhere

Yeah, about that -- Star Trek directly addresses this one by explaining that warp drive travels through space AND time.


So. .. . . the Enterprise is really a TARDIS? When did the Federation admit Gallifrey as a member planet? 

/Star Trek II: Daleks vs. The Borg
 
2012-08-22 09:07:08 PM  
Quantum Apostrophe:

Cinaed: We simply don't live long enough for that kind of more practical application of science

We don't? But I'm chairman of the Human Life Shortening project. Short life is what gives life meaning and makes you want to do things!!!


I really love your well thought out, apropos posts in every thread related to space. The sheeple need to know that hardly any money is spent on human life sciences ($30.86b not including private investment that can be done on a small scale) what with the absurdly huge amounts of money spent on space $(17.71b for something that has a high bar for entry).

Really, people need to realize that lying in bed forever should override EVERYTHING! So long as Q.A. lives forever and ever and the nurse comes in to change the channel to his favorite programs when he wants, who the hell cares what happens to his children. 

Just know that we appreciate your vision... Speaking of which, have you taken that pill that you described in an earlier Fark post that will fix your faulty vision? I've been concerned about that.
 
2012-08-22 09:08:37 PM  

Fricknmaniac: #3 You can stop and start without worrying about inertia

They created inertial dampeners to explain why the acceleration and deceleration don't send people flying. Now if you want to say that inertial dampeners don't exist... fine, but pretend like they don't explain it.


Reminds me of the Heisenberg compensator from Star Trek, which would explain how transporters worked in Trek without violating the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle.

When asked by Time magazine in 1994, "How do the Heisenberg compensators work?" Michael Okuda replied, "They work just fine, thank you."
 
2012-08-22 09:09:34 PM  

BorgiaGinz: MrEricSir: FTA: 9. You can travel at the speed of light and no time passes elsewhere

Yeah, about that -- Star Trek directly addresses this one by explaining that warp drive travels through space AND time.

So. .. . . the Enterprise is really a TARDIS? When did the Federation admit Gallifrey as a member planet? 

/Star Trek II: Daleks vs. The Borg


comicsmedia.ign.com
 
2012-08-22 09:11:25 PM  
Can't the Holodeck be described as a room that is bigger on the ....
 
2012-08-22 09:11:44 PM  

maxheck: Quantum Apostrophe:

Cinaed: We simply don't live long enough for that kind of more practical application of science

We don't? But I'm chairman of the Human Life Shortening project. Short life is what gives life meaning and makes you want to do things!!!

I really love your well thought out, apropos posts in every thread related to space. The sheeple need to know that hardly any money is spent on human life sciences ($30.86b not including private investment that can be done on a small scale) what with the absurdly huge amounts of money spent on space $(17.71b for something that has a high bar for entry).

Really, people need to realize that lying in bed forever should override EVERYTHING! So long as Q.A. lives forever and ever and the nurse comes in to change the channel to his favorite programs when he wants, who the hell cares what happens to his children. 

Just know that we appreciate your vision... Speaking of which, have you taken that pill that you described in an earlier Fark post that will fix your faulty vision? I've been concerned about that.


I do it for my art, man.

In case you actually believe that sci-fi is reality, here is what I suggest.

klinchan.net
danielmiessler.com
upload.wikimedia.org

That should help with your vision.
/I don't know, are you a Space Nutter? A True Believer in the "wet rock" hypothesis, and defender of the (echo effect) SPEEECIES??? 
//If so, what is your stance on socialized health care?
 
2012-08-22 09:13:40 PM  

Tommy Moo: thrasherrr: Tommy Moo: A question for physicists: how is time dilation compatible with theory of general relativity? If I travel away from earth at close to the speed of light, and then turn around and travel back to earth at close to the speed of light, supposedly hundreds of years will have passed on earth, and I will be in the future. But who is to say that I didn't stay put, and it was the earth that was traveling? What is the absolute reference point in the universe against which motion is calculated for the purpose of time dilation?

There isn't any absolute reference point. To simplify it hugely, the time differential comes because you underwent the acceleration to near c, and the earth did not. It seems reciprocal until you realize that only one end sees the induced gravity effect of acceleration. If the earth accelerated more, it would be the one going into the future.

So the arbitration would have to do with the fact that an outside force acted on me, but not the earth? That I can accept. This was really bothering me for a while!


You can think about it that way. Just remember that the force is not the ultimate cause, but does track the event.
 
2012-08-22 09:18:58 PM  

BorgiaGinz: So. .. . . the Enterprise is really a TARDIS?


No, the Enterprise doesn't really exist, it's all a holodeck simulation.
 
2012-08-22 09:21:54 PM  
dervish16108:

Fricknmaniac: #3 You can stop and start without worrying about inertia

They created inertial dampeners to explain why the acceleration and deceleration don't send people flying. Now if you want to say that inertial dampeners don't exist... fine, but pretend like they don't explain it.

Reminds me of the Heisenberg compensator from Star Trek, which would explain how transporters worked in Trek without violating the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle.

When asked by Time magazine in 1994, "How do the Heisenberg compensators work?" Michael Okuda replied, "They work just fine, thank you."


Reminds me of the Benny Hill routine about "How do male elephants find female elephants in the tall grass?"

"Quite nice, thank you!"

I'd also add that #8 and #10 are engineering problems, not theoretical problems. In fact, figure out #8 and #10 gets a lot simpler... Our own planet figured out how to make a bubble around itself that blocks immense amounts of radiation. 

But yeah, fiction is fiction. Go figure. You move the story along with wantum physics.

Just as there aren't any... Oh, I dunno, pick something absurd such as fire breathing dragons or immortal humans.
 
2012-08-22 09:24:06 PM  

eraser8: They just seem to be things that are impossible with current technology -- but science fiction writers assume we'll solve sometime in the future.


There's a difference between physics and technology.

Physics just *is*. It exists as it is despite our knowledge, ignorance, wishful thinking, abilities.

Technology, on the other hand, is a product of knowledge and effort which develops over time.

Unless we uncover a fundamental feature of physics that permits FTL, no amount of technology or effort will get past it. 

e.g. "Man can never travel in heavier than air craft" was a belief based upon technology, not physics. When we conquered flight, physics didn't change, technology did.
 
2012-08-22 09:30:18 PM  
lohphat: eraser8: They just seem to be things that are impossible with current technology -- but science fiction writers assume we'll solve sometime in the future.

There's a difference between physics and technology.

Physics just *is*. It exists as it is despite our knowledge, ignorance, wishful thinking, abilities.

Technology, on the other hand, is a product of knowledge and effort which develops over time.

Unless we uncover a fundamental feature of physics that permits FTL, no amount of technology or effort will get past it. 

e.g. "Man can never travel in heavier than air craft" was a belief based upon technology, not physics. When we conquered flight, physics didn't change, technology did.


Physics not might have changed, but our understanding of it did. Same with the atom bomb and nuclear fission. It was there until a very smart man found out E=MC^2 and others used that to build technology to harvest it.

It be pretty arrogant to think we understand all physics and quantum mechanics as is now. We're only starting to get a grasp on the building blocks of particles and what entanglement means in practical use terms.
 
2012-08-22 09:37:30 PM  

TyrantII: It be pretty arrogant to think we understand all physics and quantum mechanics as is now. We're only starting to get a grasp on the building blocks of particles and what entanglement means in practical use terms.


Science knows it doesn't know everything, otherwise it would stop.

We know we don't know everything, but we're doing pretty well if we can see all the way to the microwave background glow of the big bang and find the Higgs.

Are there bigger/smaller structures? Most probably.
Are there things we don't understand? Of course.
Nature of light and it's max speed? We've pretty well hammered that one out from a lot of angles. It would take a new discovery of something never before encountered in all the observations and experimentations we've done up until now.
 
2012-08-22 09:42:23 PM  
Hey, maxheck , don't wuss out on me. What is your stance on socialized health care?
 
2012-08-22 09:43:17 PM  
Quantum Apostrophe:

maxheck: Quantum Apostrophe:

Cinaed: We simply don't live long enough for that kind of more practical application of science

We don't? But I'm chairman of the Human Life Shortening project. Short life is what gives life meaning and makes you want to do things!!!

I really love your well thought out, apropos posts in every thread related to space. The sheeple need to know that hardly any money is spent on human life sciences ($30.86b not including private investment that can be done on a small scale) what with the absurdly huge amounts of money spent on space $(17.71b for something that has a high bar for entry).

Really, people need to realize that lying in bed forever should override EVERYTHING! So long as Q.A. lives forever and ever and the nurse comes in to change the channel to his favorite programs when he wants, who the hell cares what happens to his children.

Just know that we appreciate your vision... Speaking of which, have you taken that pill that you described in an earlier Fark post that will fix your faulty vision? I've been concerned about that.

I do it for my art, man.

In case you actually believe that sci-fi is reality, here is what I suggest.

klinchan.net
danielmiessler.com
upload.wikimedia.org

That should help with your vision.
/I don't know, are you a Space Nutter? A True Believer in the "wet rock" hypothesis, and defender of the (echo effect) SPEEECIES???
//If so, what is your stance on socialized health care?


All the ad-hominims and angry little non-sequiturs aside, you really come across as an angry little guy who's wife left him for a NASA engineer once he failed from being too old.

It's fine that you want to live forever. No problem, more power to ya. Is there a particular reason that you get so very angry about anything other than living forever hugging your bedpan?

I'll add this... I'm a reasonably well-educated layman who grew up in a family of life-sciences researchers. Mom was a chemist, sister is a molecular biologist, brother-in-law is well-known for his work in HIFU for cancer treatment.

I personally might know a bit more about physics than life-extension, but I can say this... Life-extension nutters are working on hope and wishes rather than any coherent, workable framework. You have more wantum mechanics going on than any "space nutter." 

biatch all you want, but the "space nutters" actually have achieved things. Reconcile that with your "us vs. them" view.
 
2012-08-22 09:45:29 PM  

RoyBatty: BorgiaGinz: MrEricSir: FTA: 9. You can travel at the speed of light and no time passes elsewhere

Yeah, about that -- Star Trek directly addresses this one by explaining that warp drive travels through space AND time.

So. .. . . the Enterprise is really a TARDIS? When did the Federation admit Gallifrey as a member planet? 

/Star Trek II: Daleks vs. The Borg

[comicsmedia.ign.com image 465x706]


Makes more sense than this:

img2.imagesbn.com
If they made this into a movie, it would star Patrick Stewart in a dual role!

 
2012-08-22 09:47:20 PM  
Come on, maxheck, don't wuss out on me. What is your stance on socialized health care?
 
2012-08-22 09:48:42 PM  
They're all just comic books come to life on a screen.

That's about how seriously I take any of it. I just watch and enjoy.
 
2012-08-22 09:49:00 PM  
Quantum Apostrophe:

Hey, maxheck , don't wuss out on me. What is your stance on socialized health care?

Ummm... That came out of nowhere... Is it pertinent? What's the context? Should I cover Quantum Apostrophe's life extension or something?
 
2012-08-22 09:49:42 PM  
Dumb list.

I'll add something though...

** The chances of SETI actually making contact are incredibly infinitesimal.
It relies on the idea that an alien civilization would point a massive transmitter across interstellar distances to Earth, in an extremely narrow band of time, relative to the life of the universe (we have been listening for what, 60~70 years out of 13 billion?) and broadcast a message to us. It makes several terrible assumptions, of course... that aliens would identify our star system as likely to have a civilization, and that they would assume we would be here in this particular time.

We may not even be using Radio as a communication medium in another 100 years.

Back to the list, though, it assumes our technology will never change. Sure, some of it is idiotic nitpicking of movies, but let's be honest, nobody posting in this thread believes CURRENT space travel is anything like the movies. For all we know, however, they may figure out how to create exotic matter, for example, that provides localized gravity, or blocks harsh radiation (had the author of that article never heard of magnetic fields, or the simple expedient of housing life support modules surrounded by insulated water tanks?) Any well read sci-fi reader will have heard a dozen fanciful ways future man may have tamed gravity and inertia/momentum, and plenty of stories have gone the long route on space travel (Echoes of Earth comes to mind). We still don't have all the answers to the mysteries of 'reality' so it is impossible to know what is impossible.
 
2012-08-22 09:51:06 PM  

maxheck: Quantum Apostrophe:

Hey, maxheck , don't wuss out on me. What is your stance on socialized health care?

Ummm... That came out of nowhere... Is it pertinent? What's the context? Should I cover Quantum Apostrophe's life extension or something?


Cluck cluck! What is your stance on socialized health care?
 
2012-08-22 09:51:15 PM  

fusillade762: And a fun fact: There was no FTL in the Firefly universe.


Nor in Alastair Reynold's books. You should check them out of your local library.

\plug
\\Seriously, visit your local library.

aerojockey: Has anyone pointed out that these are not myths, per se, but a list of things sci-fi audiences are willing to suspend disbelief about?


I like this point of view.


6) You can communicate with aliens

This isn't really a physics myth, but it's the one that jumps out at Amy Graves, a physics professor at Swarthmore College. She especially loves it when people come up with a convenient explanation for this, like Star Trek's Universal Translator or the Babel Fish in Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy. Or the dictorobitron from Plan 9 from Outer Space.


This is something that I wish more science fiction would explore. In most science fiction, aliens are more or less humanoid, with human emotions and motivations (tweaked, of course, to prove the author's point). I'm of the opinion that if humanity does ever meet other sentient beings, they would be so (for lack of a better word) alien that we wouldn't understand that they were even sentient (nor vice versa). It would be like a human trying to understand the motivations and emotions of a sentient rock.
 
2012-08-22 09:51:15 PM  

lohphat: e.g. "Man can never travel in heavier than air craft" was a belief based upon technology, not physics. When we conquered flight, physics didn't change, technology did.


Actually it was a widely held belief at one time that the laws of aerodynamics would prevent the flight of any vehicle heavy enough to carry a man. The understanding of physics was incomplete (indeed, much of the theory of lifting sections needed to accurately describe why some aircraft designs worked and others failed, wasn't developed until well after the Wright brothers "got it right").

If the secret to FTL is some principle of physics that we don't yet know about, then by definition, we don't know about that. We know there's a lot that we don't know. But there's a lot more we don't know that we don't know about.
 
2012-08-22 09:51:28 PM  

lohphat: TyrantII: It be pretty arrogant to think we understand all physics and quantum mechanics as is now. We're only starting to get a grasp on the building blocks of particles and what entanglement means in practical use terms.

Science knows it doesn't know everything, otherwise it would stop.

We know we don't know everything, but we're doing pretty well if we can see all the way to the microwave background glow of the big bang and find the Higgs.

Are there bigger/smaller structures? Most probably.
Are there things we don't understand? Of course.
Nature of light and it's max speed? We've pretty well hammered that one out from a lot of angles. It would take a new discovery of something never before encountered in all the observations and experimentations we've done up until now.


Well, you sound pretty certain. A lot of scientific "certainties" have changed over time.
 
2012-08-22 09:52:37 PM  

maxheck: Quantum Apostrophe:

Cinaed: We simply don't live long enough for that kind of more practical application of science

We don't? But I'm chairman of the Human Life Shortening project. Short life is what gives life meaning and makes you want to do things!!!

I really love your well thought out, apropos posts in every thread related to space. The sheeple need to know that hardly any money is spent on human life sciences ($30.86b not including private investment that can be done on a small scale) what with the absurdly huge amounts of money spent on space $(17.71b for something that has a high bar for entry).

Really, people need to realize that lying in bed forever should override EVERYTHING! So long as Q.A. lives forever and ever and the nurse comes in to change the channel to his favorite programs when he wants, who the hell cares what happens to his children. 

Just know that we appreciate your vision... Speaking of which, have you taken that pill that you described in an earlier Fark post that will fix your faulty vision? I've been concerned about that.


Hey, it's better than every thread that has to do with evolution being shiat into "is there a God or not."
 
2012-08-22 09:57:16 PM  
Quantum Apostrophe:

Come on, maxheck, don't wuss out on me. What is your stance on socialized health care?

Would you have a problem if I did pay for your life extension? Would you have a problem if I said "piss off and quite literally die?"

The thing being, I do pay for both. I quite happily pay for the NIH, and in fact I've volunteered for NIH studies for years, which is more than most do. I've been fMRI'ed, DNA sequenced, I've spent weekends with a shunt in a vein, and taken umpteen zillion tests. I live near the Bethesda campus, so it's easier for me than most I guess... I've done it often enough that I have a parking tag.

In fact, my file probably actually has done something you might benefit from.

So besides taxes, what have *you* done for medicine?
 
2012-08-22 09:59:08 PM  

lohphat: "Man can never travel in heavier than air craft" was a belief based upon technology, not physics.


Actually there were (incorrect) physics arguments that for large objects the amount of lift you could get wouldn't overcome the weight of any known material with enough stiffness-to-weight ratio to produce it. (Basically, engineers believed that lift force could be predicted by shooting a water jet at a surface at various angles and measuring the force, but it turns out that it's way, way more complicated. A lifting surface in air will get a LOT more lift than that experiement would show.) I suppose that still leaves room for technological discoveries of stronger materials.

This was one of the reasons the Wright brothers bothered with their own wind tunnel. Engineers studying flight at the start of the 20th century knew the old law of lift was wrong, but many existing publications still used it.
 
2012-08-22 10:04:57 PM  

Cthulhu_is_my_homeboy: If the secret to FTL is some principle of physics that we don't yet know about, then by definition, we don't know about that.


It's not like flight was already existing in birds and bats and we just needed to figure it out for ourselves by thinking harder and updating our models of flight. We haven't seen anything yet that is FTL as an example to aspire towards -- it's a hard stop where there's no example yet observed -- for us to percieve as a goal strive for.

I'm not saying it *can't* happen, but there's no hint of it anywhere. At least the concept of heavier than air flight has been demonstrated as long as man has watched birds.
 
2012-08-22 10:05:35 PM  

aerojockey: lohphat: "Man can never travel in heavier than air craft" was a belief based upon technology, not physics.

Actually there were (incorrect) physics arguments that for large objects the amount of lift you could get wouldn't overcome the weight of any known material with enough stiffness-to-weight ratio to produce it. (Basically, engineers believed that lift force could be predicted by shooting a water jet at a surface at various angles and measuring the force, but it turns out that it's way, way more complicated. A lifting surface in air will get a LOT more lift than that experiement would show.) I suppose that still leaves room for technological discoveries of stronger materials.

This was one of the reasons the Wright brothers bothered with their own wind tunnel. Engineers studying flight at the start of the 20th century knew the old law of lift was wrong, but many existing publications still used it.


Indeed.

Another issue was the lack of understanding about low versus high Reynolds number aerodynamics, and how that affects the generation of lift. Basically very small, slow-moving objects like birds and insects play by different "rules" than large, fast objects like aircraft (one of the obstacles to building micro-drones). It led people to study the flight of animals and conclude by extrapolation that an airplane would be impossible.
 
2012-08-22 10:07:17 PM  
[points, laughs at QA]

Long after I've shuffled off this mortal coil and am out enjoying the entire Universe in an altered state of being that's fit for eternity, YOU will still be trapped in the ever-decaying meat.
 
2012-08-22 10:10:58 PM  

RoyBatty: comicsmedia.ign.com


I feel bad for enjoying it.

Really, The Doctor would immediately be identified as a Q for the way he acts.
 
2012-08-22 10:14:46 PM  

pion: It would be like a human trying to understand the motivations and emotions of a sentient rock.


Or the development of sentient spacefaring life lends itself towards a certain type of species. We won't really know anything in that regard for a looooooooooooong time.
 
2012-08-22 10:20:21 PM  

lohphat: I'm not saying it *can't* happen, but there's no hint of it anywhere. At least the concept of heavier than air flight has been demonstrated as long as man has watched birds.


Maybe not FTL in the "classical" sense. Relativity is probably absolute. But there are indications that things like wormholes may be permissible. And then there's entanglement (although I think that one's going to turn out to be a dead end). And there are ideas involving frame-dragging, warping of spacetime, etc. And we know spacetime can be warped because that's what gravity is...

The point is, science is often "quite sure" about things that later turn out to be incorrect.
 
2012-08-22 10:25:58 PM  
I just have to ask...

Quantum Apostrophe

Why exactly are you so pissed off re: space exploration.

Because just your posts on a semi-obscure discussion board lead me to believe that you are incredibly wound up against it. 

What the hell happened?
 
2012-08-22 10:27:34 PM  

maxheck: Quantum Apostrophe:

Come on, maxheck, don't wuss out on me. What is your stance on socialized health care?

Would you have a problem if I did pay for your life extension? Would you have a problem if I said "piss off and quite literally die?"

The thing being, I do pay for both. I quite happily pay for the NIH, and in fact I've volunteered for NIH studies for years, which is more than most do. I've been fMRI'ed, DNA sequenced, I've spent weekends with a shunt in a vein, and taken umpteen zillion tests. I live near the Bethesda campus, so it's easier for me than most I guess... I've done it often enough that I have a parking tag.

In fact, my file probably actually has done something you might benefit from.

So besides taxes, what have *you* done for medicine?


Hmm, you're too defensive to deal with right now. At least you're not a hypocrite, it would have blown my mind that someone who purports to care about the species be against socialized health care. I'm still not quite sure what your stance is, for or against. You just say you pay for it.

Your views on the physics of life extension are fascinating, however. Do you believe atoms have an age? If they do, how can you tell? Are there "tired" carbon atoms? What test can you devise to show me?
 
2012-08-22 10:28:39 PM  

Quantum Apostrophe: maxheck: Quantum Apostrophe:
That should help with your vision.
/I don't know, are you a Space Nutter? A True Believer in the "wet rock" hypothesis, and defender of the (echo effect) SPEEECIES??? 
//If so, what is your stance on socialized health care?


you are such a massive douche
 
2012-08-22 10:31:28 PM  

Tommy Moo: A question for physicists: how is time dilation compatible with theory of general relativity? If I travel away from earth at close to the speed of light, and then turn around and travel back to earth at close to the speed of light, supposedly hundreds of years will have passed on earth, and I will be in the future. But who is to say that I didn't stay put, and it was the earth that was traveling? What is the absolute reference point in the universe against which motion is calculated for the purpose of time dilation?


that just blew mt mind.
 
2012-08-22 10:34:28 PM  

Oakenshield: The author of this article must be fun at parties.


Right? I feel like I see one of these per week and they ALL pretend like THEY'RE the first ones to point out that FTL travel is impossible.
 
2012-08-22 10:34:52 PM  

Snark Shark II: Quantum Apostrophe: maxheck: Quantum Apostrophe:
That should help with your vision.
/I don't know, are you a Space Nutter? A True Believer in the "wet rock" hypothesis, and defender of the (echo effect) SPEEECIES??? 
//If so, what is your stance on socialized health care?

you are such a massive douche


At least I'm not a naive, drooling farkwit with too few braincells to question the assumptions behind my beliefs. According to my massive mainframe, you're between 15-23 years old. We'll see how reality beats some sense into your thick, delusional brain pan in the next decade or so.

So, what is your stance on socialized health care?
 
2012-08-22 10:36:26 PM  
Lots of these as noted are TV/movie things, not SF in general. There's plenty of SF that tries to get most physics right, or at least plausible. See Alastair Renyold's books for good examples- no FTL travel at all, so they ends up dealing with huge swaths of time. He does fantasize about inertia dampers and wormholes, but there are plenty of places where those don't exist- one of his books has a classic scene where a person is dropped down the main elevator shaft of an enormous spaceship but survives (and kills her enemy) by rapidly varying the ship's thrust.

As for "understandable aliens" try Varley's Eight Worlds series, Gardner's League of People's stuff or Simak's The Visitors. There are some great bits on aliens in there- one of my favorites from Gardner (paraphrased from memory)

"The founding members of the League of Peoples had billions of years of evolution on the human race. To call them Godlike would be demeaning."
 
2012-08-22 10:36:43 PM  
Quantum Apostrophe:

Hmm, you're too defensive to deal with right now.

Convenient as it is...

You know, I really don't know what your or why your own deflection on socialised medicine is.

Mind if I ask what your opinion on life extension is? What you think the timeline is? (not to tax your mind too much, but since you stress it so often, I assume you've pondered it...)

Really, though.. I have only one question for you.

Have you thought through your eternal life schemes?
 
2012-08-22 10:38:25 PM  
Ok... I'm gonna ask...

Is someone posting on QuantumApostrophe's account?
 
2012-08-22 10:41:32 PM  

Quantum Apostrophe: Snark Shark II: Quantum Apostrophe: maxheck: Quantum Apostrophe:
That should help with your vision.
/I don't know, are you a Space Nutter? A True Believer in the "wet rock" hypothesis, and defender of the (echo effect) SPEEECIES??? 
//If so, what is your stance on socialized health care?

you are such a massive douche

At least I'm not a naive, drooling farkwit with too few braincells to question the assumptions behind my beliefs. According to my massive mainframe, you're between 15-23 years old. We'll see how reality beats some sense into your thick, delusional brain pan in the next decade or so.

So, what is your stance on socialized health care?


Why did you never answer maxcheck's questions?

/cluck
 
2012-08-22 10:42:39 PM  

Quantum Apostrophe: Snark Shark II: Quantum Apostrophe: maxheck: Quantum Apostrophe:
That should help with your vision.
/I don't know, are you a Space Nutter? A True Believer in the "wet rock" hypothesis, and defender of the (echo effect) SPEEECIES??? 
//If so, what is your stance on socialized health care?

you are such a massive douche

At least I'm not a naive, drooling farkwit with too few braincells to question the assumptions behind my beliefs. According to my massive mainframe, you're between 15-23 years old. We'll see how reality beats some sense into your thick, delusional brain pan in the next decade or so.

So, what is your stance on socialized health care?


32, and I'm not the one arguing against space exploration like it ate my girlfriend or like I don't have a basic grasp of the emerging technologies that will lead to manned space exploration one day.
 
2012-08-22 10:43:30 PM  
Solution to zero G problem:

Build a spacecraft with the axis of thrust normal to the floors.

Accelerate at 1 G half way to wherever you're going.

At the midpoint, cut the engines, briefly enter zero G, turn the ship around so it's pointing back the way you came.

Accelerate again at 1 G, only now you're slowing down.

Once you arrive at your destination you're back in zero G but you had gravity the whole way there.

If you guys need any other problems solved, I'm here all night.
 
2012-08-22 10:46:19 PM  

studebaker hoch: Solution to zero G problem:

Build a spacecraft with the axis of thrust normal to the floors.

Accelerate at 1 G half way to wherever you're going.

At the midpoint, cut the engines, briefly enter zero G, turn the ship around so it's pointing back the way you came.

Accelerate again at 1 G, only now you're slowing down.

Once you arrive at your destination you're back in zero G but you had gravity the whole way there.

If you guys need any other problems solved, I'm here all night.


yeah, seriously, that stuff is easy.
 
2012-08-22 10:48:40 PM  
<b><a href="http://www.fark.com/comments/7282712/78888977#c78888977" target="_blank">lohphat</a>:</b> <i>Cthulhu_is_my_homeboy: If the secret to FTL is some principle of physics that we don't yet know about, then by definition, we don't know about that.

It's not like flight was already existing in birds and bats and we just needed to figure it out for ourselves by thinking harder and updating our models of flight. We haven't seen anything yet that is FTL as an example to aspire towards -- it's a hard stop where there's no example yet observed -- for us to percieve as a goal strive for.

I'm not saying it *can't* happen, but there's no hint of it anywhere. At least the concept of heavier than air flight has been demonstrated as long as man has watched birds.</i>

Well, if I had to guess I'm going to go with humans inventing sentient robots first, and they would probably develop our Hawking Drives and Far Caster portals. Assuming they don't get all "kill all humans" very quickly.

As it is now we also could travel to other stars, or colonize mars. We have technologies to get us around the general neighborhood. It's just not a big priority, because our whole culture is still based on local resource extraction. We also don't feel like investing generations of wealth and effort, or going on suicide missions.
 
2012-08-22 10:52:09 PM  
studebaker hoch: Solution to zero G problem:

Build a spacecraft with the axis of thrust normal to the floors.

Accelerate at 1 G half way to wherever you're going.

At the midpoint, cut the engines, briefly enter zero G, turn the ship around so it's pointing back the way you came.

Accelerate again at 1 G, only now you're slowing down.

Once you arrive at your destination you're back in zero G but you had gravity the whole way there.

If you guys need any other problems solved, I'm here all night.


How do you solve particles hitting you at close to C? Not sure about you, but that give me a very bad day.
 
2012-08-22 10:52:29 PM  

TyrantII: <b><a href="http://www.fark.com/comments/7282712/78888977#c78888977" target="_blank">lohphat</a>:</b> <i>Cthulhu_is_my_homeboy: If the secret to FTL is some principle of physics that we don't yet know about, then by definition, we don't know about that.

It's not like flight was already existing in birds and bats and we just needed to figure it out for ourselves by thinking harder and updating our models of flight. We haven't seen anything yet that is FTL as an example to aspire towards -- it's a hard stop where there's no example yet observed -- for us to percieve as a goal strive for.

I'm not saying it *can't* happen, but there's no hint of it anywhere. At least the concept of heavier than air flight has been demonstrated as long as man has watched birds.</i>

Well, if I had to guess I'm going to go with humans inventing sentient robots first, and they would probably develop our Hawking Drives and Far Caster portals. Assuming they don't get all "kill all humans" very quickly.

As it is now we also could travel to other stars, or colonize mars. We have technologies to get us around the general neighborhood. It's just not a big priority, because our whole culture is still based on local resource extraction. We also don't feel like investing generations of wealth and effort, or going on suicide missions.

this

 
2012-08-22 10:52:55 PM  
Snark Shark II

studebaker hoch: Solution to zero G problem:

Build a spacecraft with the axis of thrust normal to the floors.

Accelerate at 1 G half way to wherever you're going.

At the midpoint, cut the engines, briefly enter zero G, turn the ship around so it's pointing back the way you came.

Accelerate again at 1 G, only now you're slowing down.

Once you arrive at your destination you're back in zero G but you had gravity the whole way there.

If you guys need any other problems solved, I'm here all night.

yeah, seriously, that stuff is easy.


We just don't currently have anything that can give us that constant 1 G of acceleration. Otherwise, what's wrong? We're not breaking any current theories of physics other than just not having that motor.
 
2012-08-22 10:53:37 PM  

TyrantII: studebaker hoch: Solution to zero G problem:

Build a spacecraft with the axis of thrust normal to the floors.

Accelerate at 1 G half way to wherever you're going.

At the midpoint, cut the engines, briefly enter zero G, turn the ship around so it's pointing back the way you came.

Accelerate again at 1 G, only now you're slowing down.

Once you arrive at your destination you're back in zero G but you had gravity the whole way there.

If you guys need any other problems solved, I'm here all night.

How do you solve particles hitting you at close to C? Not sure about you, but that give me a very bad day.


acceleration to 1 G is not close to C.
 
2012-08-22 10:54:52 PM  

studebaker hoch: Solution to zero G problem:

Build a spacecraft with the axis of thrust normal to the floors.

Accelerate at 1 G half way to wherever you're going.

At the midpoint, cut the engines, briefly enter zero G, turn the ship around so it's pointing back the way you came.

Accelerate again at 1 G, only now you're slowing down.

Once you arrive at your destination you're back in zero G but you had gravity the whole way there.

If you guys need any other problems solved, I'm here all night.


Ever read The Sparrow by Mary Doria Russell?
 
2012-08-22 11:00:47 PM  
Snark Shark II: TyrantII: studebaker hoch: Solution to zero G problem:

Build a spacecraft with the axis of thrust normal to the floors.

Accelerate at 1 G half way to wherever you're going.

At the midpoint, cut the engines, briefly enter zero G, turn the ship around so it's pointing back the way you came.

Accelerate again at 1 G, only now you're slowing down.

Once you arrive at your destination you're back in zero G but you had gravity the whole way there.

If you guys need any other problems solved, I'm here all night.

How do you solve particles hitting you at close to C? Not sure about you, but that give me a very bad day.

acceleration to 1 G is not close to C.


He's talking about 1G constant acceleration, which typically posits that you reach 99% the speed of light in ~1/2 year. Particles of matter hitting you at those speeds are very, very bad.

Really though, the answer is not to go close to C. So instead of a 4+1 year trip to the closest star, take a 40 year trip.

But then you run into problems of fuel.
 
2012-08-22 11:01:40 PM  

maxheck: I really don't know what your or why your own deflection on socialised medicine is.


I answered "someone who purports to care about the species be against socialized health care.". Seems clear to me. I would have found it odd if someone who screams at the top of his lungs about imaginary asteroids destroying the species in the future, can't care about actual humans today with real problems.

Clear?

maxheck: Have you thought through your eternal life schemes?


Have you thought about your eternal species schemes? Do you believe evolution has stopped? Will there even be a human species in a million years?

maxheck: Mind if I ask what your opinion on life extension is?


We've already done it. We've doubled our life expectancy by doing really hard, high-energy things* like washing hands before surgery, not midwifing right after an autopsy without washing our hands first, germ theory, sanitation, vaccination, nutrition, better working conditions.

(*sarcasm, aimed at the delirious Space Nutter schemes that require more energy and materials than the human race has used since ever)

We've also extended our youth period. People get married later and have fun longer.

*YOU* also enjoy a longer and healthier life than if you had been born 200 years ago... Surely this is obvious? YOU are living an extended life span!

So what's wrong with more? There are no physical barriers to that. No new energy sources required, no magical materials needed.

We just need to find out why aging occurs. It's certainly not a property of matter itself. The same carbon atom that was in an 80 year old man can wind up in a baby's food and be part of its body.

Unless you believe matter has an "age" similar to what biological age means? Prove it. Devise a test to tell one atom of carbon from another. You can't. There's no way, even in principle to "tell" if the carbon atom has been around since right after the Big Bang, or was fused two seconds ago in a fusor.

Then where does biological age come from? I have my suspicions, but that's all they are. I do know it will require breakthroughs in math to understand. Nothing more. No new energy sources required, no magical materials needed.

Fortunately, the one technology we have that HAS improved by orders of magnitude is our capacity to juggle enormous amounts of information.

As for a timeline, I used to be just as delusional as a Space Nutter, but about nanotechnology. Now I really don't think it's going to happen any time soon. The Drexler type of nanotechnology is either impossible or just very improbable. We do, however, have cells to tinker with...

The resistance from people who seem happy with their pitiful handful of decades in this vast universe dumbfounds me.

"Oh look! A universe! Ugh! I'm dead!"*

See what I'm getting at? 

*Short quote illustrates relative shortness of human lifespan vs. age of the universe.
 
2012-08-22 11:08:08 PM  
What a bullshiat list, especially that last one. "Duuuuuh, there is no such thing as radiation shielding!"
 
2012-08-22 11:09:46 PM  
Oh look, another space thread has been shat.
 
2012-08-22 11:09:57 PM  
TyrantII

He's talking about 1G constant acceleration, which typically posits that you reach 99% the speed of light in ~1/2 year. Particles of matter hitting you at those speeds are very, very bad.

Really though, the answer is not to go close to C. So instead of a 4+1 year trip to the closest star, take a 40 year trip.

But then you run into problems of fuel.


I think the way we'll really do it when we do it is just build collossal ships, and plan on voyages lasting lifetimes or more.

That would get us to nearby stars eventually. Thing is, the ships have to be totally self sustaining over the long haul through the cold of space.

Also, you have to have an all-volunteer crew essentially signing up to serve life sentences on this thing. What sounds cool today might not be so much fun anymore when you're 20 years older.

And we can't speak for the children of the space voyagers, who did NOT sign up for the ride. They may very well revolt, and in a generation, turn that boat right back around again and come back home.

You'd have to make the ship so huge that there wouldn't be a feeling of being captive.

We don't feel stuck on Earth, not most of us, because it's huge and really nice.

We'd need some kind of ship that nobody would want to leave to return to Earth.
 
2012-08-22 11:12:18 PM  

TyrantII: Snark Shark II: TyrantII: studebaker hoch: Solution to zero G problem:

Build a spacecraft with the axis of thrust normal to the floors.

Accelerate at 1 G half way to wherever you're going.

At the midpoint, cut the engines, briefly enter zero G, turn the ship around so it's pointing back the way you came.

Accelerate again at 1 G, only now you're slowing down.

Once you arrive at your destination you're back in zero G but you had gravity the whole way there.

If you guys need any other problems solved, I'm here all night.

How do you solve particles hitting you at close to C? Not sure about you, but that give me a very bad day.

acceleration to 1 G is not close to C.

He's talking about 1G constant acceleration, which typically posits that you reach 99% the speed of light in ~1/2 year. Particles of matter hitting you at those speeds are very, very bad.

Really though, the answer is not to go close to C. So instead of a 4+1 year trip to the closest star, take a 40 year trip.

But then you run into problems of fuel.


Which is why people have proposed a system using hydrogen, which is the most abundant resource out there.
But yes, I forgot about the ramping up, but even at 99% you'll never close the gap and really get close to C at all. But it's all just semantics, I guess.
 
2012-08-22 11:13:23 PM  

Snark Shark II: I'm not the one arguing against space exploration


Neither am I. Who are you talking to? This is a thread about space travel, which will never go beyond the little entertaining hops to the upper atmosphere we do now. Space exploration concerns sending machines to take pictures of dead rocks floating in a vacuum. In case you haven't noticed, space is big, machines are getting better, we aren't, and F=ma.

maxheck: Ok... I'm gonna ask...

Is someone posting on QuantumApostrophe's account?


Eh? I'm my usual charming, entertaining and educational self. But if the baby won't eat, you can't force knowledge down his throat until he stops screaming and crying about the stories he reads.

And boy, can they scream... Have you read some of the delirious rants in here? Those people will sure feel like idiots when they Google their posts in ten years... "I believed THAT? I wrote like THAT? How do I delete that!?"
 
2012-08-22 11:14:19 PM  

costermonger: Oh look, another space thread has been shat.


Yet it has more comments about fictional spacecraft than a thread about real spacecraft does. Just saying!
 
2012-08-22 11:15:59 PM  

studebaker hoch: TyrantII

He's talking about 1G constant acceleration, which typically posits that you reach 99% the speed of light in ~1/2 year. Particles of matter hitting you at those speeds are very, very bad.

Really though, the answer is not to go close to C. So instead of a 4+1 year trip to the closest star, take a 40 year trip.

But then you run into problems of fuel.

I think the way we'll really do it when we do it is just build collossal ships, and plan on voyages lasting lifetimes or more.

That would get us to nearby stars eventually. Thing is, the ships have to be totally self sustaining over the long haul through the cold of space.

Also, you have to have an all-volunteer crew essentially signing up to serve life sentences on this thing. What sounds cool today might not be so much fun anymore when you're 20 years older.

And we can't speak for the children of the space voyagers, who did NOT sign up for the ride. They may very well revolt, and in a generation, turn that boat right back around again and come back home.

You'd have to make the ship so huge that there wouldn't be a feeling of being captive.

We don't feel stuck on Earth, not most of us, because it's huge and really nice.

We'd need some kind of ship that nobody would want to leave to return to Earth.


squarefaction.ru

Just make sure the climatrol works fine and it'll all work out.
 
2012-08-22 11:16:10 PM  

Quantum Apostrophe: Snark Shark II: I'm not the one arguing against space exploration

Neither am I. Who are you talking to? This is a thread about space travel, which will never go beyond the little entertaining hops to the upper atmosphere we do now. Space exploration concerns sending machines to take pictures of dead rocks floating in a vacuum. In case you haven't noticed, space is big, machines are getting better, we aren't, and F=ma.



annnnnnd still an ignorant douche.
 
2012-08-22 11:17:30 PM  
studebaker hoch: TyrantII

He's talking about 1G constant acceleration, which typically posits that you reach 99% the speed of light in ~1/2 year. Particles of matter hitting you at those speeds are very, very bad.

Really though, the answer is not to go close to C. So instead of a 4+1 year trip to the closest star, take a 40 year trip.

But then you run into problems of fuel.

I think the way we'll really do it when we do it is just build collossal ships, and plan on voyages lasting lifetimes or more.

That would get us to nearby stars eventually. Thing is, the ships have to be totally self sustaining over the long haul through the cold of space.

Also, you have to have an all-volunteer crew essentially signing up to serve life sentences on this thing. What sounds cool today might not be so much fun anymore when you're 20 years older.

And we can't speak for the children of the space voyagers, who did NOT sign up for the ride. They may very well revolt, and in a generation, turn that boat right back around again and come back home.

You'd have to make the ship so huge that there wouldn't be a feeling of being captive.

We don't feel stuck on Earth, not most of us, because it's huge and really nice.

We'd need some kind of ship that nobody would want to leave to return to Earth.


Sound all very Fallout-ish.

I'm not sure if it be so bad. There's already cults and the Amish out there. It be really easy to control a smaller group in a generational ship, provided you don't educate the next generation on things that shouldn't concern them, like the green grass and blue waters of earth that they'll never see.

That opens a whole book of morality issues though.

Still, like I said we could do the local neighborhood in 1-2 generation ships or one way missions at .1-.4G traveling and slower frames. "Because we can" really isn't a good enough reason yet though.
 
2012-08-22 11:18:47 PM  

Fano: studebaker hoch: TyrantII

He's talking about 1G constant acceleration, which typically posits that you reach 99% the speed of light in ~1/2 year. Particles of matter hitting you at those speeds are very, very bad.

Really though, the answer is not to go close to C. So instead of a 4+1 year trip to the closest star, take a 40 year trip.

But then you run into problems of fuel.

I think the way we'll really do it when we do it is just build collossal ships, and plan on voyages lasting lifetimes or more.

That would get us to nearby stars eventually. Thing is, the ships have to be totally self sustaining over the long haul through the cold of space.

Also, you have to have an all-volunteer crew essentially signing up to serve life sentences on this thing. What sounds cool today might not be so much fun anymore when you're 20 years older.

And we can't speak for the children of the space voyagers, who did NOT sign up for the ride. They may very well revolt, and in a generation, turn that boat right back around again and come back home.

You'd have to make the ship so huge that there wouldn't be a feeling of being captive.

We don't feel stuck on Earth, not most of us, because it's huge and really nice.

We'd need some kind of ship that nobody would want to leave to return to Earth.

*snip*
Just make sure the climatrol works fine and it'll all work out.


To be honest, we should perfect the technology they tried to use in the 90's on that biosphere thing. That was supposed to be a test on how to build a self-supporting eco-system that could support an off-planet colony or outpost. If I remember correctly, it didn't do well. If we perfected that, space travel would definitely be more comfortable if you bring the farm, field, and forest with you.
 
2012-08-22 11:20:58 PM  
Snark Shark II:

Which is why people have proposed a system using hydrogen, which is the most abundant resource out there.
But yes, I forgot about the ramping up, but even at 99% you'll never close the gap and really get close to C at all. But it's all just semantics, I guess.


Drag and inefficient collection becomes a real problem. And yes, you'll never hit C since it's impossible. From earth the ship would appear to reach 99.9% or whatever, but on the ship you're only noticing the 1G acceleration, maybe, not really since you have nothing to reference. Plus from the ship light is still coming and going at C.

Relativity is fun!
 
2012-08-22 11:23:56 PM  

Quantum Apostrophe: [static4.depositphotos.com image 850x566]

But but but the species and magic materials and like exploring and science! WAAHHHHHHHHHHHH!


Yes, we know. You hate space travel. Hate all you want, it's not going to help you live forever.
 
2012-08-22 11:25:58 PM  

TyrantII: Snark Shark II:

Which is why people have proposed a system using hydrogen, which is the most abundant resource out there.
But yes, I forgot about the ramping up, but even at 99% you'll never close the gap and really get close to C at all. But it's all just semantics, I guess.

Drag and inefficient collection becomes a real problem. And yes, you'll never hit C since it's impossible. From earth the ship would appear to reach 99.9% or whatever, but on the ship you're only noticing the 1G acceleration, maybe, not really since you have nothing to reference. Plus from the ship light is still coming and going at C.

Relativity is fun!


I love my copy of A Brief History of Time, lemme tell ya'.
 
2012-08-22 11:27:53 PM  

Snark Shark II: annnnnnd still an ignorant douche.


Wah wah wah. One day you'll realize what the limits of physics and engineering are, and you'll be able to engage in an adult conversation about what's possible and what's not concerning apes in tin cans hurtling in a deadly, radiation-blasted vacuum.

I'll bet you don't even know how big space actually is. You think it's the size of the TV you're watching your fantasies on. The level of your comments here is abysmal. You are ignorant and seem to revel in your ignorance. Only time will fix this.

Ten years, google yourself.

LoneWolf343: What a bullshiat list, especially that last one. "Duuuuuh, there is no such thing as radiation shielding!"


I know, it's like when people think we'll never live longer. "Duuuuh, there's no such thing as advanced medicine!"
 
2012-08-22 11:31:49 PM  

Quantum Apostrophe: you'll be able to engage in an adult conversation


Okay, I laughed.
 
2012-08-22 11:33:04 PM  
For the gravity still working, if you read the Star Trek Technical Manual (was really lonely in jr. high) it states that the gravity is generated by a spinning disk and it will still spin for a few hours after a power failure due to momentum providing constant, but steadily decreasing gravity. The foot note from Mike Okuda and Rick Sternbach says it was mainly because CGI and live action was out of the budget so they were forced to come up with a technical reason to explain something caused by budget constraints.

Plus all of the ships in Star Trek and a few other series have inertia dampening fields. That's why people don't get splattered and the ship doesn't fly apart when they're doing 1,000,000 G maneuvers.

It's like the author didn't even try to understand how the SciFi media said things work and took them at face value, then said why it can't work with today's tech. They're just bashing on the couple of movies they saw. Which makes me say

dennisjudd.com
 
2012-08-22 11:35:37 PM  

costermonger: Quantum Apostrophe: you'll be able to engage in an adult conversation

Okay, I laughed.


Meet you on Mars in ten years? We'll have space ale in my condo and laugh about the good old days on Earth, with all that "fresh air", water, correct gravity, magnetosphere, and laugh at all those idiots that chose to stay behind while we eat yeast steaks underground! 

To Elon Musk! Huurah!
 
2012-08-22 11:37:46 PM  

Quantum Apostrophe: Snark Shark II: annnnnnd still an ignorant douche.

Wah wah wah. One day you'll realize what the limits of physics and engineering are, and you'll be able to engage in an adult conversation about what's possible and what's not concerning apes in tin cans hurtling in a deadly, radiation-blasted vacuum.

I'll bet you don't even know how big space actually is. You think it's the size of the TV you're watching your fantasies on. The level of your comments here is abysmal. You are ignorant and seem to revel in your ignorance. Only time will fix this.

Ten years, google yourself.

No, I know how big space is. But I also know that technology will gradually improve even if it takes thousands or millions of years. We'll most likely never break C but we'll find ways around it. But even then, slowly colonizing the galaxy ( which is 100 thousand light years in diameter), in 300,000 years going only 25% the speed of light will be easy.

We'll never have instantaneous travel except maybe in the far, far future, but we'll be able to still travel to the stars one day. No matter how much you say it's impossible, it doesn't make that true. It's not going to be impossible, just really hard and resource-intense.

Humans in Space
Colonizing the galaxy


Of course, you'll probably not even read that. You'll just rant about it as if it's a religion and you're the lone atheist. It's sad, really.

 
2012-08-22 11:42:03 PM  

Ed Grubermann: Quantum Apostrophe: [static4.depositphotos.com image 850x566]

But but but the species and magic materials and like exploring and science! WAAHHHHHHHHHHHH!

Yes, we know. You hate space travel. Hate all you want, it's not going to help you live forever.


I hate the delusional religious, bordering on the blindly cult-like, fervor that people seem to cultivate about the (echo effect) fuuuuuture of the speeeecies!!! IN SPACE!!

Sending robots with cameras is one thing, thinking that colonizing an utter vacuum is just a bigger version of Columbus is another. It demonstrates a total lack of understanding about the scale of space, physics and technology. And a few other "y"s like biology and economy. But hey, one thing at a time.

I can't make a screaming, vomiting baby eat. You have to decide to stop screaming and eat. You can chose to revel in your ignorance and stay at the level of a hand-waving wide-eyed daydreamer, or you can try to engage your farking brain cells and educate yourself.

Your move.
 
2012-08-22 11:42:21 PM  

Snark Shark II: Quantum Apostrophe: Snark Shark II: annnnnnd still an ignorant douche.

Wah wah wah. One day you'll realize what the limits of physics and engineering are, and you'll be able to engage in an adult conversation about what's possible and what's not concerning apes in tin cans hurtling in a deadly, radiation-blasted vacuum.

I'll bet you don't even know how big space actually is. You think it's the size of the TV you're watching your fantasies on. The level of your comments here is abysmal. You are ignorant and seem to revel in your ignorance. Only time will fix this.

Ten years, google yourself.

No, I know how big space is. But I also know that technology will gradually improve even if it takes thousands or millions of years. We'll most likely never break C but we'll find ways around it. But even then, slowly colonizing the galaxy ( which is 100 thousand light years in diameter), in 300,000 years going only 25% the speed of light will be easy.

We'll never have instantaneous travel except maybe in the far, far future, but we'll be able to still travel to the stars one day. No matter how much you say it's impossible, it doesn't make that true. It's not going to be impossible, just really hard and resource-intense.

Humans in Space
Colonizing the galaxy

Of course, you'll probably not even read that. You'll just rant about it as if it's a religion and you're the lone atheist. It's sad, really.


Blah, sorry ten to a hundred million years. Either way it's still possible. more possible than " living forever"
 
2012-08-22 11:43:23 PM  
Also, 2001 had it wrong on the spinning cylinder in the ship. The cylinder in the ship will want to spin the ship requiring lots of propellant burns to correct itself. The only movie that got it right was Red Planet with a ship with 2 counter rotating wheels. If you're going to quote Phil Blait, at least read his very, very good Bad Astronomy movie reviews when he's written articles exactly about what you're writing an article about.
 
2012-08-22 11:43:26 PM  

Quantum Apostrophe: Ed Grubermann: Quantum Apostrophe: [static4.depositphotos.com image 850x566]

But but but the species and magic materials and like exploring and science! WAAHHHHHHHHHHHH!

Yes, we know. You hate space travel. Hate all you want, it's not going to help you live forever.

I hate the delusional religious, bordering on the blindly cult-like, fervor that people seem to cultivate about the (echo effect) fuuuuuture of the speeeecies!!! IN SPACE!!

Sending robots with cameras is one thing, thinking that colonizing an utter vacuum is just a bigger version of Columbus is another. It demonstrates a total lack of understanding about the scale of space, physics and technology. And a few other "y"s like biology and economy. But hey, one thing at a time.

I can't make a screaming, vomiting baby eat. You have to decide to stop screaming and eat. You can chose to revel in your ignorance and stay at the level of a hand-waving wide-eyed daydreamer, or you can try to engage your farking brain cells and educate yourself.

Your move.



"You'll just rant about it as if it's a religion and you're the lone atheist. It's sad, really."

Wow. I was right on target.
 
2012-08-22 11:44:31 PM  

Quantum Apostrophe: Snark Shark II: annnnnnd still an ignorant douche.

Wah wah wah. One day you'll realize what the limits of physics and engineering are, and you'll be able to engage in an adult conversation about what's possible and what's not concerning apes in tin cans hurtling in a deadly, radiation-blasted vacuum.

I'll bet you don't even know how big space actually is. You think it's the size of the TV you're watching your fantasies on. The level of your comments here is abysmal. You are ignorant and seem to revel in your ignorance. Only time will fix this.

Ten years, google yourself.

LoneWolf343: What a bullshiat list, especially that last one. "Duuuuuh, there is no such thing as radiation shielding!"

I know, it's like when people think we'll never live longer. "Duuuuh, there's no such thing as advanced medicine!"


What's really dumb about the statement isn't that it isn't an assumption of eventual progress, but radiation shielding is available now. Lead is the most common form of it, but many other substances can absorb or reflect radiation. It's only in every manned spacecraft ever made, after all.
 
2012-08-22 11:47:04 PM  

Snark Shark II: Quantum Apostrophe: Snark Shark II: annnnnnd still an ignorant douche.

Wah wah wah. One day you'll realize what the limits of physics and engineering are, and you'll be able to engage in an adult conversation about what's possible and what's not concerning apes in tin cans hurtling in a deadly, radiation-blasted vacuum.

I'll bet you don't even know how big space actually is. You think it's the size of the TV you're watching your fantasies on. The level of your comments here is abysmal. You are ignorant and seem to revel in your ignorance. Only time will fix this.

Ten years, google yourself.

No, I know how big space is. But I also know that technology will gradually improve even if it takes thousands or millions of years. We'll most likely never break C but we'll find ways around it. But even then, slowly colonizing the galaxy ( which is 100 thousand light years in diameter), in 300,000 years going only 25% the speed of light will be easy.

We'll never have instantaneous travel except maybe in the far, far future, but we'll be able to still travel to the stars one day. No matter how much you say it's impossible, it doesn't make that true. It's not going to be impossible, just really hard and resource-intense.

Humans in Space
Colonizing the galaxy

Of course, you'll probably not even read that. You'll just rant about it as if it's a religion and you're the lone atheist. It's sad, really.


Ladies and gentlemen, the Chick Tract of the Space Nutter True Believer.

You actually believe this shiat. How old are you? My mainframe now revised it down to 12. It could be just because my cat just shat its litter box, but I think it's because your PDF is no different from what my cat just did.

Ten years, kid. We'll all still be here, your space fantasies will be as forgotten as the Japanese Space Hotel of 1997 and OTRAG.

Promise me you'll Google yourself in ten years?
 
2012-08-22 11:47:39 PM  

Cinaed: Risen Empire

Not 'great', but has a more interesting take on technology and science.


I loved those books. Wish he'd come out with a third one, it didn't seem like it was finished yet. Also "Evolution's Darling" by the same author is quite good.


pion: fusillade762: And a fun fact: There was no FTL in the Firefly universe.

Nor in Alastair Reynold's books. You should check them out of your local library.

\plug
\\Seriously, visit your local library.


Loves me some Reynolds. And as a matter of fact I did get most of his books from the library.

Libraries rule.


maxheck: I just have to ask...

Quantum Apostrophe

Why exactly are you so pissed off re: space exploration.

Because just your posts on a semi-obscure discussion board lead me to believe that you are incredibly wound up against it. 

What the hell happened?


A space explorer raped his dog.
 
2012-08-22 11:50:44 PM  

fusillade762: A space explorer raped his dog.


Legitimate rape or sweet-sweet altar boy rape?
 
2012-08-22 11:54:36 PM  

LoneWolf343: What's really dumb about the statement isn't that it isn't an assumption of eventual progress, but radiation shielding is available now. Lead is the most common form of it, but many other substances can absorb or reflect radiation. It's only in every manned spacecraft ever made, after all.


Really? So we haven't extended our life span at all? And you think our pitiful shielding will scale to the Star Trek levels you'll need? Wise up, chump. Why don't you find out how thin the walls of the LEM were, and what the long terms effects of being in the ISS are. Go ahead.

Snark Shark II: Wow. I was right on target.


Gloat all you want. It's OK. That's what being 12 is for. 

One day, you will know enough facts and have experienced enough reality, and your brain will in one fell swoop conclude "wait a minute, this makes no sense whatsoever. It never did! IT NEVER DID! AHHHHHHHH".

Promise me you'll Google yourself in ten years? Surely if your faith is strong, you have nothing to worry about?
 
2012-08-22 11:55:16 PM  

lohphat: fusillade762: A space explorer raped his dog.

Legitimate rape or sweet-sweet altar boy rape?


Which kind can the brain abort?
 
2012-08-22 11:59:31 PM  

Snark Shark II: Blah, sorry ten to a hundred million years. Either way it's still possible. more possible than " living forever"


But the species will go on forever, right? In magical fairy-tale space ships where the hero can use his enormous space penis to shoot light-years long streams of sperm across the universe. Right?
 
2012-08-23 12:07:52 AM  
fusillade762:

Cinaed: Risen Empire

Not 'great', but has a more interesting take on technology and science.

I loved those books. Wish he'd come out with a third one, it didn't seem like it was finished yet. Also "Evolution's Darling" by the same author is quite good.


pion: fusillade762: And a fun fact: There was no FTL in the Firefly universe.

Nor in Alastair Reynold's books. You should check them out of your local library.

\plug
\\Seriously, visit your local library.

Loves me some Reynolds. And as a matter of fact I did get most of his books from the library.

Libraries rule.


maxheck: I just have to ask...

Quantum Apostrophe

Why exactly are you so pissed off re: space exploration.

Because just your posts on a semi-obscure discussion board lead me to believe that you are incredibly wound up against it.


Why that over, say...

Why exactly. ?

What the hell happened?

A space explorer raped his dog.
 
2012-08-23 12:11:45 AM  

Kittypie070: [points, laughs at QA]

Long after I've shuffled off this mortal coil and am out enjoying the entire Universe in an altered state of being that's fit for eternity, YOU will still be trapped in the ever-decaying meat.


Holy crap are you mentally ill.
 
2012-08-23 12:15:20 AM  
Well, we could imagine a world where where we all live forever...

And then turn back and curl untu our bellies
 
2012-08-23 12:24:30 AM  
So I take it, Quantum apostrophe is just Bevets in drag? His arguments certainly smack of the same kind of non-thinking, poorly educated failure to reason beyond his own preconceptions of reality. Please QA, go back to being Bevets, you're much more entertaining that way and the creationist troll cow isn't quite milked dry even now. Admittedly a lot of users have your other sock puppets on their ignore lists, but still you were always at your best when you were clearly batshait crazy instead of merely trying to claim that everyone else is ahem, a space nutter.
 
2012-08-23 12:28:41 AM  

lohphat: TyrantII: It be pretty arrogant to think we understand all physics and quantum mechanics as is now. We're only starting to get a grasp on the building blocks of particles and what entanglement means in practical use terms.

Science knows it doesn't know everything, otherwise it would stop.

We know we don't know everything, but we're doing pretty well if we can see all the way to the microwave background glow of the big bang and find the Higgs.

Are there bigger/smaller structures? Most probably.
Are there things we don't understand? Of course.
Nature of light and it's max speed? We've pretty well hammered that one out from a lot of angles. It would take a new discovery of something never before encountered in all the observations and experimentations we've done up until now.


There are actually several possible shortcut that modern physics allows for that may eventually allow interstellar travel. they will doubtless require huge amounts of energy to use, and none of them are going to happen within the next 1000 years, but the possibility exists. here are a couple of examples:

Quantum physics: there is an extremely small chance that, at any time, any particle may disappear from where it is and appear somewhere else in the universe instantly. If we can learn to make this happen at will, and control where they appear this would allow instant travel anywhere.

String Theory: String theory postulates that there are as many as 26 dimensions. If we can figure out how to move in these extra dimensions the trip could be much shorter. The shortest distance between any 2 points is a straight line, if we can only move in 3 of the 26 dimensions at a time there are 15600 straight lines to chose from. If we figure out how to move freely in any of them at the same time there are 4.03x10^26 straight lines to chose from. Some of those lines are gonna be real short, so even though we cannot exceed the speed of light in those dimensions either, we still get there faster than we can in these 3 dimensions.
 
2012-08-23 12:30:03 AM  

maxheck: Well, we could imagine a world where where we all live forever...

And then turn back and curl untu our bellies


Why live at all? Oh my, how ever did people live when they thought the earth was the center of the universe and we all lived in a crystal ball? How did people survive the drama of thinking the Milky Way was the universe?

What the fark do you need a vacuum to justify your life for? What new kind of mental illness is this?

Is your life so pathetic, so useless, you only see yourself as a Duggar for creating space apes?

What religion is this?

What terrifies you so much about life that you don't want more of it, yet you think you can speak for the whole species and condemn it to a harsh, short existence on radiation-blasted dead rocks in a vacuum?

You gots issues, man. You better hope Elon Musk provides you with Medical Plus on Mars. You're gonna need it. 

Ten years. Google yourself. See if you still believe this childish dreck.
 
2012-08-23 12:32:54 AM  

Snark Shark II: TyrantII: studebaker hoch: Solution to zero G problem:

Build a spacecraft with the axis of thrust normal to the floors.

Accelerate at 1 G half way to wherever you're going.

At the midpoint, cut the engines, briefly enter zero G, turn the ship around so it's pointing back the way you came.

Accelerate again at 1 G, only now you're slowing down.

Once you arrive at your destination you're back in zero G but you had gravity the whole way there.

If you guys need any other problems solved, I'm here all night.

How do you solve particles hitting you at close to C? Not sure about you, but that give me a very bad day.

acceleration to 1 G is not close to C.


G is almost exactly the same as C. It just has a little dash in it.
 
2012-08-23 12:41:05 AM  
Quantum Apostrophe:


>i>maxheck: Well, we could imagine a world where where we all live forever...

And then turn back and curl untu our bellies

Why live at all? Oh my, how ever did people live when they thought the earth was the center of the universe and we all lived in a crystal ball? How did people survive the drama of thinking the Milky Way was the universe?

What the fark do you need a vacuum to justify your life for? What new kind of mental illness is this?

Is your life so pathetic, so useless, you only see yourself as a Duggar for creating space apes?

What religion is this?

What terrifies you so much about life that you don't want more of it, yet you think you can speak for the whole species and condemn it to a harsh, short existence on radiation-blasted dead rocks in a vacuum?

You gots issues, man. You better hope Elon Musk provides you with Medical Plus on Mars. You're gonna need it.

It's more an observational, sympathetic as in "poor guy!" thing.. But you seem to be obsessively inclined to HAVE TO be a not-entirely-useful whiner in every space related thread.

It's like, why? What or who pissed in your Cheerios?
Ten years. Google yourself. See if you still believe this childish dreck.

I haven't seen anyone be wound up about your nuttery.

You're here EVERY TIME.

No one seems to be pissed off about your obsession.

Why?
 
2012-08-23 12:43:15 AM  
And say we did it.

Say our giant megacruiser pulls into orbit around a somewhat-reasonable-looking Earth-like planet. Unlikely as f*ck but just say we find one a few dozen generations away.

If there's oxygen in the atmosphere, that means there's massive biosphere down there.

What then? Are you really going to dare go down to the surface? Every microbe is alien. Every bacteria, every virus, every plant and animal is something you have absolutely no defense against. You will probably die in days if not hours by something incredibly nasty. But not before you let your own germs out into an ecosystem that has never seen anything like YOU before. Hello, invasive species?

We should never go anywhere *near* another planet with any life on it at all. Or if we ever did, acclimate very carefully, if it could even be done.

Probably why aliens never land here. It would be suicide.

Planet hopping is sci-fi fantasy.

We have a whole Solar system we can build out. Moon, Mars, asteroids, and more.

We can stink it up to smell just like us and just stay home.
 
2012-08-23 12:49:49 AM  

Memoryalpha: So I take it, Quantum apostrophe is just Bevets in drag? His arguments certainly smack of the same kind of non-thinking, poorly educated failure to reason beyond his own preconceptions of reality. Please QA, go back to being Bevets, you're much more entertaining that way and the creationist troll cow isn't quite milked dry even now. Admittedly a lot of users have your other sock puppets on their ignore lists, but still you were always at your best when you were clearly batshait crazy instead of merely trying to claim that everyone else is ahem, a space nutter.


It's funny. He can sit there and tell us that we've advanced in medical knowledge over the centuries and are living longer and that we'll live even longer in the future, but he can't seem to accept that same change could easily happen with space exploration due to advances in technology, our understanding of physics and advances in our knowledge of space.

Quantum Apostrophe: We've also extended our youth period. People get married later and have fun longer.

*YOU* also enjoy a longer and healthier life than if you had been born 200 years ago... Surely this is obvious? YOU are living an extended life span!



200 years ago we couldn't get a machine off the ground with us in it. Now we have manned space flight. But of course he selectively ignores that.

Am I saying that I'm going to get the chance to go live on Mars or some other space colony? Not bloody likely, but eventually it could be possible.
 
2012-08-23 12:50:59 AM  

maxheck: Quantum Apostrophe:


>i>maxheck: Well, we could imagine a world where where we all live forever...

And then turn back and curl untu our bellies

Why live at all? Oh my, how ever did people live when they thought the earth was the center of the universe and we all lived in a crystal ball? How did people survive the drama of thinking the Milky Way was the universe?

What the fark do you need a vacuum to justify your life for? What new kind of mental illness is this?

Is your life so pathetic, so useless, you only see yourself as a Duggar for creating space apes?

What religion is this?

What terrifies you so much about life that you don't want more of it, yet you think you can speak for the whole species and condemn it to a harsh, short existence on radiation-blasted dead rocks in a vacuum?

You gots issues, man. You better hope Elon Musk provides you with Medical Plus on Mars. You're gonna need it.

It's more an observational, sympathetic as in "poor guy!" thing.. But you seem to be obsessively inclined to HAVE TO be a not-entirely-useful whiner in every space related thread.

It's like, why? What or who pissed in your Cheerios?
Ten years. Google yourself. See if you still believe this childish dreck.

I haven't seen anyone be wound up about your nuttery.

You're here EVERY TIME.

No one seems to be pissed off about your obsession.

Why?


OK, you got me. I'm actually from the future, where humanity has colonized the entire universe and the universe is one big reality show and Skrillex is the best musician.

I've been sent here to prevent that from happening. Since it's obvious we have all the energy and materials and technology to colonize the universe tomorrow morning, only I can stop humanity's tragic destiny with my posts!

But that has to stay secret between you and me. Do I have your cooperation? If you help me, I'll give you the blueprints for a space elevator.
 
2012-08-23 12:55:58 AM  

rickycal78: 200 years ago we couldn't get a machine off the ground with us in it. Now we have manned space flight. But of course he selectively ignores that.


And you selectively choose to believe that means anything is possible, while ignoring all the physics and engineering that went into it.

Oh, and 200 years ago?

upload.wikimedia.org

"Étienne Montgolfier was the first human to lift off the earth, making at least one tethered flight from the yard of the Réveillon workshop in the Faubourg Saint-Antoine. It was most likely on October 15, 1783."

Ignorance is bliss, eh?
 
2012-08-23 12:57:50 AM  
The entire article was written and then greenlighted, just to troll QA, wasn't it?
 
2012-08-23 12:58:11 AM  

studebaker hoch: We have a whole Solar system we can build out. Moon, Mars, asteroids, and more.


Except ....
 
2012-08-23 12:59:25 AM  

Quantum Apostrophe: rickycal78: 200 years ago we couldn't get a machine off the ground with us in it. Now we have manned space flight. But of course he selectively ignores that.

And you selectively choose to believe that means anything is possible, while ignoring all the physics and engineering that went into it.

Oh, and 200 years ago?

[upload.wikimedia.org image 410x600]

"Étienne Montgolfier was the first human to lift off the earth, making at least one tethered flight from the yard of the Réveillon workshop in the Faubourg Saint-Antoine. It was most likely on October 15, 1783."

Ignorance is bliss, eh?


You selectively ignored the part about a machine with us in it. Last I checked a balloon isn't really a machine.
And you also selectively ignored the part of my post where I mentioned possible future advances in physics.

Are you trying to say that we can advance our knowledge in medicine, but not in physics?
 
2012-08-23 01:05:20 AM  
If you're wondering how he eats and breathes And other science facts,
Just repeat to yourself "It's just a show, I should really just relax"
 
2012-08-23 01:14:58 AM  
RoyBatty

studebaker hoch: We have a whole Solar system we can build out. Moon, Mars, asteroids, and more.

Except ....


Detroit, I know.

/Attempt no layover there.
 
2012-08-23 01:17:09 AM  

fusillade762: #11 - Gravity is the same (1 G) on every planet.

And a fun fact: There was no FTL in the Firefly universe.


There must have been some form of FTL to get the original colonists from Earth That Was to their new solar system. Unless they arrived on a generational ship, or in some form of suspended animation. Or perhaps they travelled via a stable wormhole, some sort of portal where the mechanism was in our solar system so the trip would be one way unless they built a similar portal on the other side.
 
2012-08-23 01:17:52 AM  

cranked: If you're wondering how he eats and breathes And other science facts,
Just repeat to yourself "It's just a show, I should really just relax"


I am appalled, APPALLED, at the fiction in science fiction. It's like they're not even trying to be real.

/sarcasm
 
2012-08-23 01:21:01 AM  

rickycal78: You selectively ignored the part about a machine with us in it. Last I checked a balloon isn't really a machine.


Yeah yeah yeah. Define it any way you want. You're still wrong. It's an object that uses forces to do what we want them to do. It's as much a machine as a lever or a fulcrum, don't be an obstinate ass. You were wrong. Period.

rickycal78: And you also selectively ignored the part of my post where I mentioned possible future advances in physics.


Well sure, you have a faith that there's a "possible" advance in physics, which is really just saying that physics as we know it pretty much kills all the space follies right here, right now.

What if these advances in physics really don't help at all? Is that possible too? What if life extension becomes easier, but not space travel, with the new physics? Will you act like this:

farm8.staticflickr.com

rickycal78: Are you trying to say that we can advance our knowledge in medicine, but not in physics?


Well, given that we have an excellent knowledge of physics, we would have a pretty good idea of what to look for... What would that be?

Unless you have something specific in mind, your justification could be used for anything at all. Santa Claus, elves, transubstantiation, telepathy, these are all possible with "future advances in physics". So why the focus on space colonization? I'll tell you: it's colonial imagery that's part of our culture. It makes no sense though.

It never did. Glorification of endless resource gobbing, Cold War paranoia, Space Age posters, sci-fi. You have to work very hard to get rid of all this seductive imagery.

The reality about space is bleak my friend. Why not make better living arrangements right here, with the physics we know, instead of waiting in paralyzed fear for "possible" physics? 

That being said, you are essentially correct, IF there was such a breakthrough, and by some coincidence it allowed for all the materials and energy sources you'd need for all these space fantasies, sure, I'd be a believer.

Now you're a big boy, tell me, what do you realistically assume the odds are for that? Honestly. That's a pretty massive leap of faith, that these "possible" breakthroughs would magically allow all these space fantasies... Do you believe the universe was designed to fulfill this fantasy for us?

That the universe is taunting us with another Periodic Table of the Elements, this one with much stronger and harder elements? Or that there are other forces just waiting there for us to use to colonize the universe?

Do tell.  It's not science, it's faith. You can disguise it as science and fool your friends, but it's faith.
 
2012-08-23 01:22:18 AM  

Quantum Apostrophe: Ten years. Google yourself. See if you still believe this childish dreck.


Good lord, you're a pissy little poster, aren't you?

Did some astrophysicist bang your wife or something?
 
2012-08-23 01:23:36 AM  

tomcatadam: Quantum Apostrophe: Ten years. Google yourself. See if you still believe this childish dreck.

Good lord, you're a pissy little poster, aren't you?

Did some astrophysicist bang your wife or something?


I think space lured him into a van and touched him in a naughty place.
 
2012-08-23 01:24:04 AM  

studebaker hoch: RoyBatty

studebaker hoch: We have a whole Solar system we can build out. Moon, Mars, asteroids, and more.

Except ....

Detroit, I know.

/Attempt no layover there.


Very nice. Well played. Thank you.
 
2012-08-23 01:31:21 AM  

Quantum Apostrophe: Well sure, you have a faith that there's a "possible" advance in physics, which is really just saying that physics as we know it pretty much kills all the space follies right here, right now.

What if these advances in physics really don't help at all? Is that possible too? What if life extension becomes easier, but not space travel, with the new physics? Will you act like this:


Much like there's been no hide of evidence for FTL phenomenon beyond mathematical conjecture, nobody has ever seen any indefinitely regenerating life-forms either. Both are wishful fantasies. Yeah, there's no difference between atoms of the same atomic number, but yet, here we are degenerating anyway. Chemistry has been the same for billions of years and immortal life hasn't happened so far, most likely never will either.
 
2012-08-23 01:31:34 AM  
This book is far better than TFA

ecx.images-amazon.com
 
2012-08-23 01:32:55 AM  

Quantum Apostrophe: Do tell. It's not science, it's faith. You can disguise it as science and fool your friends, but it's faith.


Like your faith that we'll advance in medical knowledge enough to not only live longer, but to not be some decrepit looking barely functional mummy at an advanced age.

We can argue in circles all day but the fact remains that our knowledge in varied fields like medicine and physics is increasing. You trying to state that one is possible but not the other is simply ignorance.

Then again I know full well I'm not going to see space colonization or manned interplanetary travel, hell my grandkids may not even see it. Whereas you seem to think you'll be able to reap the benefits of some magical medical discovery that will allow you to live a substantially longer life and actually be able to enjoy those extra years.

So which one of us is delusional?
 
2012-08-23 01:40:30 AM  
Man, you guys really shouldn't feed QA. He's grumpy enough as it is! Its okay QA, you're bitter because you're old and going to die one day. We get it.
 
2012-08-23 01:41:57 AM  

tomcatadam: Quantum Apostrophe: Ten years. Google yourself. See if you still believe this childish dreck.

Good lord, you're a pissy little poster, aren't you?

Did some astrophysicist bang your wife or something?


The biggest problem facing humanity at this point is escapist fantasy masquerading as facts. Whether it's full-on religious nutjobs in politics, or people who should know better, wasting brain power and time, and making OTHER people waste time, detracts from real, actual problems facing real people alive right now.

Thinking that humanity will just magically whisk itself away from this "rock" and start over (on some other rock, presumably), is just as escapist, delusional and religious as a Born Again waiting for Rapture, or a Mormon waiting for Kolob.

Stop wasting that time. Use what time you have here and what brains you have to solve real problems here, now. There is plenty to do and learn right now, you don't need to wait for "possible" physics. 

I get it. There's a lot of strife on Earth. Lots of people. We're running out of the magic go-juice that made the last ~150 years what they were. We are now gnawing away at the table scraps, strip mining an entire province in my country to feed a maniacal need to keep this insane society going.

I get that. But thinking we'll just pluck oilsteroids (I just made that up, pretty funny, eh) out of the sky with magical technology so you can go back to making kids in the suburbs is not the answer.

Making people live longer just might give them the incentive to THINK LONG TERM about the consequences of what they do.

I may just be daydreaming too. Who knows. At least I don't require all kinds of "possibles" and "maybes". We already live longer than before. 

We don't sleep more than before though. What the hell am I still doing up? Does this have anything to do with this 1L of Coke I just drank? Or the half tub of ice cream?
 
2012-08-23 01:46:37 AM  

rickycal78: Like your faith that we'll advance in medical knowledge enough to not only live longer, but to not be some decrepit looking barely functional mummy at an advanced age.


Why is that unreasonable? Are the symptoms of aging hard-coded in matter? Does a carbon atom in a cat "know" it has to be old at 14, but pubescent in a human?

It's a pattern. That's all. There's no reason for any of the symptoms of aging, it's just that we take them for granted.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alagebrium

rickycal78: So which one of us is delusional?


The one who ignores that we already extended our lifespan. The one who thinks we need "new physics" to develop anti-aging. We don't. We need more math to understand how matter organizes itself into life.

I believe this to be much harder than building larger rockets. Whatever happened to "we chose to do these things not because they are easy, but because they are hard"?

Hm?
 
2012-08-23 01:46:42 AM  

TyrantII: Truth be told nBSG did FTL better with their instantaneous jumps. If you have the power to control space-time, it seems warping space would be easy and instantaneous. You wouldn't "travel" like in Trek. But the problem is knowing where and what you're jumping into. You could jump across the universe, but good luck that you don't jump into a sun accidentally. Better to take smaller jumps with coordinates precisely plotted out.


Not to mention their FTL system allowed for the best "fark yeah" moment of the entire series when they pulled out the Adama Maneuver.

www.cinemaspy.com
 
2012-08-23 01:47:21 AM  
choose, damn it
 
2012-08-23 01:49:28 AM  

Quantum Apostrophe: I may just be daydreaming too. Who knows. At least I don't require all kinds of "possibles" and "maybes". We already live longer than before.

We don't sleep more than before though. What the hell am I still doing up? Does this have anything to do with this 1L of Coke I just drank? Or the half tub of ice cream?


Our maximum lifespan isn't appreciably longer than it was 200 years ago, we've just become better eliminating the middle aged attrition due to disease... yay science.

Interesting that a life-extension "enthusiast" just slammed back a liter of Coke and a tub of ice cream when the only thing that's even shown results in lab tests re: extending life is calorie restriction. One might tend to think you're not actually all that serious about it.
 
2012-08-23 01:52:31 AM  

bbfreak: Man, you guys really shouldn't feed QA. He's grumpy enough as it is! Its okay QA, you're bitter because you're old and going to die one day. We get it.


Any rational being that contemplates aging and DOESN'T feel a *bit* grumpy about that is nuts.

Oh but wait. You're allowed to be grumpy because the mean space asteroid will wipe out the species, I see.

You're allowed to choose the destiny of the species, I'm not.

Tell me, if the dinosaurs magically deflected the killer asteroid, we wouldn't have evolved. What gives you the right to decide how this planet will be used, and by who, in millions of years?

And then why am I not allowed to choose to live longer?

Hm?
 
2012-08-23 01:58:52 AM  

ChiliBoots: Our maximum lifespan isn't appreciably longer than it was 200 years ago, we've just become better eliminating the middle aged attrition due to disease... yay science.


So it's bad or good? You tell me! I guess from your tone you'd be perfectly happy to do "Yay! ugh I'm dead!" in what, one or two decades? You think that scales to the size of the universe? You think it makes sense to contemplate colonizing other planets with something that has a few decades of useful life, at best?

ChiliBoots: Interesting that a life-extension "enthusiast" just slammed back a liter of Coke and a tub of ice cream


Oh what gullible fools these Farkers be...

It was a line of coke and a tubgirl.

ChiliBoots: only thing that's even shown results in lab tests re: extending life is calorie restriction


gasp! But that's impossible! PS: I know.

ChiliBoots: One might tend to think you're not actually all that serious about it.


I guess since you don't live on the ISS you're not all that serious about colonizing space...

Choosing to ignore half-assed solutions doesn't mean I'm not serious about something.
 
2012-08-23 02:08:39 AM  
I'm sure that Quantum Apostrophe has an opinion on all of this. Has he posted in the thread yet?
 
2012-08-23 02:09:37 AM  

Quantum Apostrophe: ChiliBoots: Our maximum lifespan isn't appreciably longer than it was 200 years ago, we've just become better eliminating the middle aged attrition due to disease... yay science.

So it's bad or good? You tell me! I guess from your tone you'd be perfectly happy to do "Yay! ugh I'm dead!" in what, one or two decades? You think that scales to the size of the universe? You think it makes sense to contemplate colonizing other planets with something that has a few decades of useful life, at best?

ChiliBoots: Interesting that a life-extension "enthusiast" just slammed back a liter of Coke and a tub of ice cream

Oh what gullible fools these Farkers be...

It was a line of coke and a tubgirl.

ChiliBoots: only thing that's even shown results in lab tests re: extending life is calorie restriction

gasp! But that's impossible! PS: I know.

ChiliBoots: One might tend to think you're not actually all that serious about it.

I guess since you don't live on the ISS you're not all that serious about colonizing space...

Choosing to ignore half-assed solutions doesn't mean I'm not serious about something.


No, I'm not interested in colonizing space. It's a completely pointless objective when pretty anything we could ever need to know about solar system objects can be done by robots. They'll only be improving in capability from hear on in, at least for the next few decades before we hit some hard limits with electronics. We're still pretty much the same apes we've been for quite some time though.

My actuary says I have a 75% or so chance of making it another 50 years or so, but thanks for your concern. It's actually pretty easy to do a lot of things with your life when you keep your web forum posting rate somewhere south of 100 msgs/day.
 
2012-08-23 02:10:29 AM  
I'll just assume somebody already brought up The Forever War, the greatest science fiction story ever written? No artificial gravity, no universal translator, tons of time dilation.
 
2012-08-23 02:28:48 AM  

ChiliBoots: nobody has ever seen any indefinitely regenerating life-forms either.


Link

"It has been argued that lobsters may exhibit negligible senescence and some scientists have claimed that they could effectively live indefinitely, barring injury, disease, capture, etc"

The entire biosphere is one giant regenerating life-form, as long as the Sun shines. All life is doing is taking a tiny bit of that 4 million tons of matter being converted to energy per second in the Sun and regenerating. The same atoms dancing in patterns baby.

Amoebas.

Besides, you guys are using an extreme version of life extension to mean "immortality". I just want more understanding and more control over what happens in my own mitochondria. My body, my choice, farkers! Why do birds live seven times longer than mammals the same size?

Link

ChiliBoots: there's no difference between atoms of the same atomic number, but yet, here we are degenerating anyway.


Please explain how two 30 year olds can make a baby. Please explain how a baby can grow if we are "degenerating" anyway?

It's coded. It's a program.

But hey, I think it's the first time someone actually acknowledged my "atoms are all the same" point. You hafta agree with me on that. Building blocks, man. Building blocks.

My most radical interpretation of how life works is "the data is the CPU".

If you think of coiled DNA as consisting of instructions, where's the CPU? There really isn't an address bus, or ALU, or micro-code driven by a state machine or any of that facile nonsense.

If you put atoms together a certain way, the laws of physics pretty much guarantee how they'll behave. The structure of DNA is data, but it also very much constrains how it will act. The ribosomes won't just suddenly break out in "Hello my baby! Hello my honey! Hello my ragtime gal!" when no one watches.

If we could simulate that, then simulate the ridiculous amount of cells in a human body, we could get somewhere. Computers are getting better all the time, right?

But we need that theoretical model first. That's all we need. Life already exists. It's proven to work. None of the Space Nutter fantasies are anything more than idle daydreams. The Space Elevators and the other nonsense.
 
2012-08-23 02:31:10 AM  

Quantum Apostrophe: LoneWolf343: What's really dumb about the statement isn't that it isn't an assumption of eventual progress, but radiation shielding is available now. Lead is the most common form of it, but many other substances can absorb or reflect radiation. It's only in every manned spacecraft ever made, after all.

Really? So we haven't extended our life span at all? And you think our pitiful shielding will scale to the Star Trek levels you'll need? Wise up, chump. Why don't you find out how thin the walls of the LEM were, and what the long terms effects of being in the ISS are. Go ahead.

Snark Shark II: Wow. I was right on target.

Gloat all you want. It's OK. That's what being 12 is for. 

One day, you will know enough facts and have experienced enough reality, and your brain will in one fell swoop conclude "wait a minute, this makes no sense whatsoever. It never did! IT NEVER DID! AHHHHHHHH".

Promise me you'll Google yourself in ten years? Surely if your faith is strong, you have nothing to worry about?


Were you that guy I saw randomly insert some rant about sci-fi stuff in a completely unrelated thread? I think you might be obsessed.
 
2012-08-23 02:33:09 AM  

ChiliBoots: No, I'm not interested in colonizing space. It's a completely pointless objective when pretty anything we could ever need to know about solar system objects can be done by robots. They'll only be improving in capability from hear on in, at least for the next few decades before we hit some hard limits with electronics. We're still pretty much the same apes we've been for quite some time though.


Hm, we agree on all that, except how to spell "here on in". We can't all be perfect.

ChiliBoots: It's actually pretty easy to do a lot of things with your life when you keep your web forum posting rate somewhere south of 100 msgs/day.


Now you're just being hurtful. :( I thought we were buddies, and we'd mock Space Nutters together.

Guess not...
 
2012-08-23 02:37:38 AM  

LoneWolf343: Were you that guy I saw randomly insert some rant about sci-fi stuff in a completely unrelated thread? I think you might be obsessed.


Says the guy following me at 2:30 AM on a weekday... No really, I'm flattered. When the cops come because of the smell, I'm sure they'll find your basement studio littered with printouts of my best posts.  And a good inch and a half of your tears.
 
2012-08-23 02:41:37 AM  

Quantum Apostrophe: Please explain how two 30 year olds can make a baby. Please explain how a baby can grow if we are "degenerating" anyway?

It's coded. It's a program.

But hey, I think it's the first time someone actually acknowledged my "atoms are all the same" point. You hafta agree with me on that. Building blocks, man. Building blocks.

My most radical interpretation of how life works is "the data is the CPU".

If you think of coiled DNA as consisting of instructions, where's the CPU? There really isn't an address bus, or ALU, or micro-code driven by a state machine or any of that facile nonsense.

If you put atoms together a certain way, the laws of physics pretty much guarantee how they'll behave. The structure of DNA is data, but it also very much constrains how it will act. The ribosomes won't just suddenly break out in "Hello my baby! Hello my honey! Hello my ragtime gal!" when no one watches.

If we could simulate that, then simulate the ridiculous amount of cells in a human body, we could get somewhere. Computers are getting better all the time, right?

But we need that theoretical model first. That's all we need. Life already exists. It's proven to work. None of the Space Nutter fantasies are anything more than idle daydreams. The Space Elevators and the other nonsense.


Now, these seem like more reasonable non-argumentative arguments, sorry for the snippy tone.

I'm not a biologist, so I'm no where near an expert on the matter, so when I think of humans or whatever other life form degenerating it's because whatever mechanisms that organized our molecules and cells seem to be damaged (irrevocably?) after they've done their job. It would probably take methods that can't even be conceived of right now, but yeah, maybe sometime far off in the future it'll be possible to repair that mechanism. So far though, I haven't seen any concrete theory on how this could be done.
 
2012-08-23 02:48:07 AM  

Quantum Apostrophe: Hm, we agree on all that, except how to spell "here on in". We can't all be perfect.

Must be my aged mind:-) My whole posting was a fatigued grammatical mess. It's late
ChiliBoots: It's actually pretty easy to do a lot of things with your life when you keep your web forum posting rate somewhere south of 100 msgs/day.

Now you're just being hurtful. :( I thought we were buddies, and we'd mock Space Nutters together.

Guess not...


Meh. They're harmless, not exactly something to get worked up over seeing as no one is going to be blowing up a city or something with a warp drive experiment gone wrong.

I'm a bit of butt-hole, I just not a very prolific poster so I get under the radar
 
2012-08-23 02:48:43 AM  
Well, that article was certainly a steaming pile
 
2012-08-23 02:49:02 AM  

ChiliBoots: Now, these seem like more reasonable non-argumentative arguments, sorry for the snippy tone.


Eh? Not at all. If anything, I'm more insulting and combative than I've been in a while. The end of summer always does that to me.

ChiliBoots: I'm not a biologist, so I'm no where near an expert on the matter, so when I think of humans or whatever other life form degenerating it's because whatever mechanisms that organized our molecules and cells seem to be damaged (irrevocably?) after they've done their job. It would probably take methods that can't even be conceived of right now, but yeah, maybe sometime far off in the future it'll be possible to repair that mechanism. So far though, I haven't seen any concrete theory on how this could be done.


Me neither. Even if we could say "aha! This little monkey RIGHT HERE isn't picking up after himself", how can we go into each cell of an adult and fix that? Unless we mess around with the human germ line and change it for the next generations. That's more fraught with ethical danger and potential problems than nuclear power.

I just don't see any basic physical limit to life span, so for me the problem is elsewhere.

There are plenty of real, basic physical problems with all the crazy manned space colonization and techno-worship ideas though.

That's what the QA is all about.
 
2012-08-23 02:49:54 AM  

Quantum Apostrophe: The biggest problem facing humanity at this point is escapist fantasy masquerading as facts


Earth has a limited amount of resources, many of which cannot be replenished.
That these can be found on other planets and planetoids is also a fact.

There is no fantasy involved with the idea that we need both the resources and outright living space that could be afforded on other stellar bodies. There is no fantasy involved in thinking that resources pushed towards, and answers and developments received from furthering space exploration would help many, many industries and fields - including medical and chemical.
 
2012-08-23 02:50:31 AM  
Ah damn it, "I'm just not a very prolific poster..."

If I'm going to be an arsehole, I should at least be a proper one.
 
2012-08-23 02:50:56 AM  

Tainted1: Well, that article was certainly a steaming pile


There there, the doctor will be in shortly to tighten the straps. You want your Space Elevator rattle back? coochy coohcy coo! Aw look at the cute little Nutter shutting his eyes in denial!!! How cute!
 
2012-08-23 02:54:46 AM  

tomcatadam: Earth has a limited amount of resources, many of which cannot be replenished.


As far as I know, none of them is being tossed into a black hole.

tomcatadam: That these can be found on other planets and planetoids is also a fact.


If we are running out of resources, what, pray tell, are we going to use to build the massive amount of machinery to go get these planetoids? That's also a fact.

tomcatadam: There is no fantasy involved with the idea that we need both the resources and outright living space that could be afforded on other stellar bodies.


There is if you think it's at all realistic or practical. Say, who would these people be to bravely volunteer to hunker down in a tin can in a hostile hell that makes Antartica look like a resort?

tomcatadam: There is no fantasy involved in thinking that resources pushed towards, and answers and developments received from furthering space exploration would help many, many industries and fields - including medical and chemical.


Unfortunately, history shows exactly the opposite. We had progress in many many industries and fields BEFORE we could do anything with space. Check out a little bar rumble I like to call WWII for details.
 
2012-08-23 03:00:22 AM  

TyrantII: Snark Shark II: TyrantII: studebaker hoch: Solution to zero G problem:

Build a spacecraft with the axis of thrust normal to the floors.

Accelerate at 1 G half way to wherever you're going.

At the midpoint, cut the engines, briefly enter zero G, turn the ship around so it's pointing back the way you came.

Accelerate again at 1 G, only now you're slowing down.

Once you arrive at your destination you're back in zero G but you had gravity the whole way there.

If you guys need any other problems solved, I'm here all night.

How do you solve particles hitting you at close to C? Not sure about you, but that give me a very bad day.

acceleration to 1 G is not close to C.

He's talking about 1G constant acceleration, which typically posits that you reach 99% the speed of light in ~1/2 year. Particles of matter hitting you at those speeds are very, very bad.

Really though, the answer is not to go close to C. So instead of a 4+1 year trip to the closest star, take a 40 year trip.

But then you run into problems of fuel.


2 common solutions:

1. Keep the 'fuel' at home. Have the craft accelerate by pointing a beam of energy at it, with the apparatus for creating the beam remaining local.

2. Collect fuel as you go. A giant collector that sucks up interstellar gases as it passes through them. Potentially useful because, as you accelerate and need more fuel to compensate for increased mass, you will continue to have access to more fuel because of your increased speed.
 
2012-08-23 03:01:05 AM  
You know, I can understand being pessimistic about the future of space exploration, and I knew he'd pounce on this topic, but seriously... more than 75% of the time when I scroll to a random position in this thread, Quantum Apostrophe is there raving about the impossibility of manned space exploration.

Dude, seriously: get help. I'm sorry that the creepy guy at the Griffith Observatory molested you on your school field trip in 6th grade, but you really need to find a different outlet for it than raving about how one day astronauts will go extinct. Screaming "Space Nuttertm!!!" at everyone in sight doesn't help either.

/The tears when the first mass driver comes online are going to be hilarious
 
2012-08-23 03:05:36 AM  

SomethingToDo: I'm sure that Quantum Apostrophe has an opinion on all of this. Has he posted in the thread yet?


A wise guy, eh? You want a piece of this!? Do YA!!???

Memoryalpha: So I take it, Quantum apostrophe is just Bevets in drag? His arguments certainly smack of the same kind of non-thinking, poorly educated failure to reason beyond his own preconceptions of reality. Please QA, go back to being Bevets, you're much more entertaining that way and the creationist troll cow isn't quite milked dry even now. Admittedly a lot of users have your other sock puppets on their ignore lists, but still you were always at your best when you were clearly batshait crazy instead of merely trying to claim that everyone else is ahem, a space nutter.


Could you tell if someone a lot smarter than you was making sense?
 
2012-08-23 03:06:40 AM  
#12 for the list: In space, there's no way to fly around things.

The worst culprit here is 'Serenity', where in order to reach a planet they, "have to fly through reaper territory." We then see that that means flying through a field of ships all located within a cubic mile of each other. Really? You couldn't go around?
 
2012-08-23 03:08:41 AM  

HK-MP5-SD: Quantum physics: there is an extremely small chance that, at any time, any particle may disappear from where it is and appear somewhere else in the universe instantly.


<morbo>RELATIVISTIC QUANTUM MECHANICS DOES NOT WORK THAT WAY</morbo>

/Zee group velocity of zee wave packet...
//She is always slower than c.
///:(
 
2012-08-23 03:13:05 AM  

erik-k: You know, I can understand being pessimistic about the future of space exploration, and I knew he'd pounce on this topic, but seriously... more than 75% of the time when I scroll to a random position in this thread, Quantum Apostrophe is there raving about the impossibility of manned space exploration.

Dude, seriously: get help. I'm sorry that the creepy guy at the Griffith Observatory molested you on your school field trip in 6th grade, but you really need to find a different outlet for it than raving about how one day astronauts will go extinct. Screaming "Space Nuttertm!!!" at everyone in sight doesn't help either.

/The tears when the first mass driver comes online are going to be hilarious


I'll take that bet. Anytime. Wow. "the first mass driver comes online". Wow. "online", I like that. Sciency and technical. "online". Like, there's gonna be more of them.

So your religious faith against my realism? Pah! Wow, a "mass driver", because there's just so much to get in space! A huge, hulking vacuum with rocks floating far away. Do tell, who will build this "mass driver"? What engineering firm, with what workers, with what materials, for what reason, with what money?

Go on, you're so sure about this, you must have some idea. Even the Jehovah's Witnesses memorize their spiel, so can you.

Go on, tell me.

How much you want to bet? How long do you want to wait?

Like the 1997 Japanese Space Hotel? 15 years?

Or maybe like the Solaren scam artists, err I mean very serious space engineers? How can you believe this bovine excreta?
 
2012-08-23 03:50:18 AM  
s13.postimage.org
 
2012-08-23 04:06:12 AM  

Quantum Apostrophe: So your religious faith against my realism?


You seem to not be very aware of basic physics.
 
2012-08-23 04:12:38 AM  

Quantum Apostrophe: I just don't see any basic physical limit to life span


Um....
 
2012-08-23 04:17:50 AM  
I'm not reading all this, so forgive me if someone else asked but QA, please tell me why you are so opposed to mankind attempting to leave this solitary world and colonise others? And not a wimpy 'because it's not possible, you're all delusional nutters', that's not good enough, I want to know why you are so vehemently opposed to the idea. I'm not opposed to the idea of life extension, and in fact I think any rational person would think they compliment each other, because if the Earth rapidly fills up with 300 year old people it will become very difficult to feed and house people. If we can figure out how to get self sustaining colonies on other worlds it would be an ideal solution to the problem extra longevity would pose.

Also, for farks sake, this is a thread about things science fiction shows get wrong, it's not an article about why you're right, so you're initial post of the child with fingers in ears is completely wrong and shows you didn't read the article and simply saw "myths" and "space", and thought you best get in on that.

You really are to space threads what Bevets is to biology threads.
 
2012-08-23 04:29:42 AM  
Well that was farkinn pointless. Fiction is fiction? NO farkING WAY.

Why doesn't anyone ever complain about realism when a wizard shoots fireballs out of his ass?

Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.
 
2012-08-23 04:30:59 AM  

Basily Gourt: They're all just comic books come to life on a screen.

That's about how seriously I take any of it. I just watch and enjoy.



If only more nerds were capable of this.
 
2012-08-23 04:43:53 AM  
Damn! Quantum Apostrophe got you all worked up!
Good job Q.A.!
Lest anybody does not know, I am the epitome of what Q.A. calls a space nutter.
With that said, he does bring a much need balanced voice in regards to space exploration.
 
2012-08-23 04:54:03 AM  
Saying a bunch of retarded shiat is not balance.
 
2012-08-23 04:59:48 AM  

eraser8: None of those things seem to be "myths" -- with the exception of the spacing issue (# 5).

They just seem to be things that are impossible with current technology -- but science fiction writers assume we'll solve sometime in the future.


this this more this and ONLY this
 
2012-08-23 05:03:35 AM  
They used to say that you couldn't travel faster than the speed of sound in the atmosphere. The air pressure would require more and more energy for propulsion, and that means a larger vehicle, and the larger the vehicle, the more energy required, and the larger the vehicle needed to generate that energy, and so on.

www.centennialofflight.gov
And then along came THIS Jimmy rustler!
 
2012-08-23 06:16:23 AM  
Babylon 5 rotated to simulate gravity, as well as the larger destroyers. The White Star ships don't seem to rotate and had gravity, though.
 
2012-08-23 07:22:17 AM  

TV's Vinnie: They used to say that you couldn't travel faster than the speed of sound in the atmosphere


The only ones who said that were generally people who didn't know what they were talking about. It was an engineering problem, and nothing more. They would not have tried if they didn't think it was theoretically impossible.
 
2012-08-23 07:29:19 AM  
The author had to actively ignore explanations offered in the very fiction being referenced to come up with these points. Just another example of why "top ten" lists are utterly worthless.

I should make a list...
 
2012-08-23 07:29:50 AM  

This Face Left Blank: Babylon 5 rotated to simulate gravity, as well as the larger destroyers. The White Star ships don't seem to rotate and had gravity, though.


Human ships had to rotate for gravity (the smaller ones simply didn't have any, which is why earth cruisers were equipped with "seat belt" technology). Alien ships had artificial gravity doohickies, and it was part of the technology they planned to share after the Shadow war.
Aliens also enjoyed bouncing around the bridge like pingpong balls, for some reason.

lohphat: Cthulhu_is_my_homeboy: If the secret to FTL is some principle of physics that we don't yet know about, then by definition, we don't know about that.

It's not like flight was already existing in birds and bats and we just needed to figure it out for ourselves by thinking harder and updating our models of flight. We haven't seen anything yet that is FTL as an example to aspire towards -- it's a hard stop where there's no example yet observed -- for us to percieve as a goal strive for.

I'm not saying it *can't* happen, but there's no hint of it anywhere. At least the concept of heavier than air flight has been demonstrated as long as man has watched birds.


Well, there is one example. The universe itself.
Its expansion proves that things can move much faster than the speed of light because space itself is flexible.

A second example may be in the behavior of black holes. If they could only pull objects in at 99% of light speed, we should have been able to see them directly whenever some of the material they are eating escapes.

I think that is why technology like the warp drive might be possible.
What we don't know how to do is how to tug on a section of space. Without that knowledge, calculating how much energy it might take or how fast you can go is all speculative.
What we need is a Manhattan project for learning how to manipulate gravity like we do the other forces.
 
2012-08-23 08:04:33 AM  

way south:

Obvious reason is because they were all filmed on earth. Live action has its limitations.
CGI and anime tend to be more scientifically accurate.

[dl.dropbox.com image 850x637]

[dl.dropbox.com image 640x480]

/When they feel like it.
/Because they can be wildly and amazingly inaccurate when the plot calls for it too.


What movie is that first picture from?
 
2012-08-23 08:06:37 AM  
I really wish people would stop acting like a bunch of know it alls and scoffing at the ridiculous things they do in science fiction. Articles like this presume one incredibly flawed assumption; that we know everything there is to know. There are people today who were born into a time when computers did not exist, much less have one in their pocket that could wirelessly connect to anyone on the planet in an instant. Simply assuming that because things are now the most advanced they have ever been its the most advanced they ever will be is asinine.
 
2012-08-23 08:24:26 AM  
The worst culprit here is 'Serenity', where in order to reach a planet they, "have to fly through reaper territory." We then see that that means flying through a field of ships all located within a cubic mile of each other. Really? You couldn't go around?


Well, yes and no. Due to orbital mechanics, to get into certain orbits constrains you to fly thru certain corridors or "windows". Now, to pass through that group of ships that slowly, they all have to be coasting along in the same vector. More realistically, the Serenity would flash past these ships in a moment, hoping not to hit one, in open space. But if you assume the reavers are in orbit around Miranda, now, you could have something like what was in the movie, though it still would be artificially more concentrated-looking.
 
2012-08-23 08:35:27 AM  

s1ugg0: way south:

Obvious reason is because they were all filmed on earth. Live action has its limitations.
CGI and anime tend to be more scientifically accurate.

[dl.dropbox.com image 850x637]

[dl.dropbox.com image 640x480]

/When they feel like it.
/Because they can be wildly and amazingly inaccurate when the plot calls for it too.

What movie is that first picture from?


Starship Troopers: Invasion.

/$20 on iTunes.
/Fairly predictable, had some good scenes, Better than the Verhoeven version.
 
2012-08-23 08:48:28 AM  
Oh look, it's the same tired arguments that FTL travel is impossible, blah blah blah.

Of course, they all completely disregard the fact that no sci-fi actually ever has anything massive accellerated to the speed of light and usually instead employs some sort of space bending, folding or warping which do in fact line up with our current understanding of general relativity. That wouldn't make for nearly as smug and dismissive of an article, but hey, it's a Gawker site, so what the fark should I expect?
 
2012-08-23 08:49:48 AM  

wmoonfox: The author had to actively ignore explanations offered in the very fiction being referenced to come up with these points. Just another example of why "top ten" lists Gawker sites are utterly worthless.

I should make a list...



FTFY

/why do we still link to this bullshiat?
 
2012-08-23 08:58:07 AM  

way south: ...It's not like flight was already existing in birds and bats and we just needed to figure it out for ourselves by thinking harder and updating our models of flight. We haven't seen anything yet that is FTL as an example to aspire towards -- it's a hard stop where there's no example yet observed -- for us to percieve as a goal strive for...

A second example may be in the behavior of black holes. If they could only pull objects in at 99% of light speed, we should have been able to see them directly whenever some of the material they are eating escapes..


Right idea, wrong effect. Rotating black holes drag space around them so that an object moving in the rotating spacetime at sub-luminal speeds would appear to an outside observe to be moving faster than light. This is an effect that predicted by General Relativity and is well understood by our current models. Granted, we currently have no way to harness this effect, but that doesn't mean we never will.
 
2012-08-23 09:14:58 AM  
You can have artificial gravity without spinning the ship

You can have gravity in space without spinning a ship. All you need is to accelerate at 9.8 m/s2. Now I do not know of any movie or show that does this but some books have.
 
2012-08-23 09:25:55 AM  
I figured artificial gravity in some of the shows was done with magnets of some kind.
 
2012-08-23 09:30:40 AM  

BorgiaGinz: /Star Trek II: Daleks vs. The Borg


Heh. I imagined the same thing immediately... but not as "vs." and now I have:

"YOU WILL BE ASSIMILATED!"

stuck in my head.

As to the vigorous, "NO YOU!" in this thread:

Here's a thought -- both space exploration and medical advances would be helped by a common breakthrough... one, in fact, fundamental to most sci fi (which, of course, interstellar travel and immortality both are, at least at this point)... *essentially*free*energy*.

Can we all agree to work on that, please? In addition to all the research and exploration benefits of free energy, I really would like a cheap household reactor, please. Fission, fusion, something we haven't heard of yet, whatever -- let's get on this, eh? I know, I know, solar panels are good, at least on a household scale, but a real breakthrough (or just universal acceptance of modern reactor designs?) could provide -enormous- benefits to the whole world. I want to live in the world we were promised -- a world where energy is "too cheap to meter."
 
2012-08-23 09:43:20 AM  
From what I always see, fusion power is the big daddy of most civilizations in scifi, once you hit that, energy starts becoming less an issue and you can start investing resources into other areas of development.
 
2012-08-23 10:10:20 AM  

way south: fusillade762: #11 - Gravity is the same (1 G) on every planet.

And a fun fact: There was no FTL in the Firefly universe.


UberDave: TFA: "And you'll notice that on shows like Star Trek, when life support and power are turned off, artificial gravity somehow always keeps working."

Really?

[s13.postimage.org image 320x240]
upload picture

Should have read the whole entry:

(With the exception of Star Trek VI, of course.)

Obvious reason is because they were all filmed on earth. Live action has its limitations.
CGI and anime tend to be more scientifically accurate.

[dl.dropbox.com image 850x637]

[dl.dropbox.com image 640x480]

/When they feel like it.
/Because they can be wildly and amazingly inaccurate when the plot calls for it too.


Does this mean I can make drills sprout from any available surface, simply by utilizing a mecha that runs on Awesome?
 
2012-08-23 10:21:20 AM  
I have a gripe with #4.

If you have a FTL system there's obviously something about the universe that we don't understand yet.

Why is he assuming that the FTL system doesn't also provide a communications system?
 
2012-08-23 10:36:06 AM  

Felgraf: Does this mean I can make drills sprout from any available surface, simply by utilizing a mecha that runs on Awesome?


Why yes, YES YOU CAN!

/Altho I prefer to use my forehead and powers of indecision to make a gateway through space-time for giant robots.
 
2012-08-23 10:38:14 AM  

mr lawson: Damn! Quantum Apostrophe got you all worked up!
Good job Q.A.!
Lest anybody does not know, I am the epitome of what Q.A. calls a space nutter.
With that said, he does bring a much need balanced voice in regards to space exploration.


Another one who groks me. I suffer for my art, man.

doglover: Quantum Apostrophe: I just don't see any basic physical limit to life span

Um....


Ummm, so show me this physical limit. Atoms get old? They wear out? Show me an 80 year old atom.
 
2012-08-23 10:40:20 AM  
That was an excellent article smitty. The first time in years of reading articles on fark where most of the major issues regarding space travel have really been realistically addressed. I bookmarked it for future use.

Thanks.
 
2012-08-23 10:50:21 AM  

Quantum Apostrophe: LoneWolf343: Were you that guy I saw randomly insert some rant about sci-fi stuff in a completely unrelated thread? I think you might be obsessed.

Says the guy following me at 2:30 AM on a weekday... No really, I'm flattered. When the cops come because of the smell, I'm sure they'll find your basement studio littered with printouts of my best posts.  And a good inch and a half of your tears.


...Yeah, you're crazy.

/it's not the same time all around the planet, mister science smarty-pants.
 
2012-08-23 11:05:48 AM  

LoneWolf343: Quantum Apostrophe: LoneWolf343: Were you that guy I saw randomly insert some rant about sci-fi stuff in a completely unrelated thread? I think you might be obsessed.

Says the guy following me at 2:30 AM on a weekday... No really, I'm flattered. When the cops come because of the smell, I'm sure they'll find your basement studio littered with printouts of my best posts.  And a good inch and a half of your tears.

...Yeah, you're crazy.

/it's not the same time all around the planet, mister science smarty-pants.


Yes, yes, you're a jet-setter who just happens to take time out from his busy life of impressing supermodels with talk of space elevators, to check up on little old me.
 
2012-08-23 11:07:25 AM  
ChiliBoots: Quantum Apostrophe: Well sure, you have a faith that there's a "possible" advance in physics, which is really just saying that physics as we know it pretty much kills all the space follies right here, right now.

What if these advances in physics really don't help at all? Is that possible too? What if life extension becomes easier, but not space travel, with the new physics? Will you act like this:

Much like there's been no hide of evidence for FTL phenomenon beyond mathematical conjecture, nobody has ever seen any indefinitely regenerating life-forms either. Both are wishful fantasies. Yeah, there's no difference between atoms of the same atomic number, but yet, here we are degenerating anyway. Chemistry has been the same for billions of years and immortal life hasn't happened so far, most likely never will either.


Chemistry and lack of immortal life doesn't have anything to really do with each other. There's organisms on the ocean floor that life for 1000's if not 10's of thousands. Lots of medical breakthroughs have been made using a gene line that is literally immortal; google Henrietta Lacks.

Life seems to have evolved to live and die to keep genes and beneficial mutations going, while causing bad mutations to die out. But there's nothing in chemistry that say someone or thing couldn't practically live forever.
 
2012-08-23 11:15:24 AM  
Virtuoso80: #12 for the list: In space, there's no way to fly around things.

The worst culprit here is 'Serenity', where in order to reach a planet they, "have to fly through reaper territory." We then see that that means flying through a field of ships all located within a cubic mile of each other. Really? You couldn't go around?


Well, reaper territory was a region of space in the outer solar system. So it wasn't a nice clear cut place, but rather an entire area. As for the spaceships, blame it on the budget. It seems like it should have been a graveyard of ships around the planet, ala Wall-E, but they probably didn't have the budget to do both a entire graveyard plus planet and then the battle towards the end.

You could extrapolate this film phenomenon to how other in science fiction ships just end up "finding" each other. Space is kinda big, but somehow ships just always seem to appear close to each other!
 
2012-08-23 11:15:27 AM  

studebaker hoch: TyrantII

He's talking about 1G constant acceleration, which typically posits that you reach 99% the speed of light in ~1/2 year. Particles of matter hitting you at those speeds are very, very bad.

Really though, the answer is not to go close to C. So instead of a 4+1 year trip to the closest star, take a 40 year trip.

But then you run into problems of fuel.

I think the way we'll really do it when we do it is just build collossal ships, and plan on voyages lasting lifetimes or more.

That would get us to nearby stars eventually. Thing is, the ships have to be totally self sustaining over the long haul through the cold of space.

Also, you have to have an all-volunteer crew essentially signing up to serve life sentences on this thing. What sounds cool today might not be so much fun anymore when you're 20 years older.

And we can't speak for the children of the space voyagers, who did NOT sign up for the ride. They may very well revolt, and in a generation, turn that boat right back around again and come back home.

You'd have to make the ship so huge that there wouldn't be a feeling of being captive.

We don't feel stuck on Earth, not most of us, because it's huge and really nice.

We'd need some kind of ship that nobody would want to leave to return to Earth.


If I were a struggling science fiction writer, I would be stealing this right now...

/alas, I can't even speel
 
2012-08-23 11:26:04 AM  
1) FTL Travel - Most science fiction achieves this by having their ships not travel through normal space in some way (wormholes, hyperspace, or warp bubbles).

2) Artificial Gravity - Usually they just assume they can control gravitons in some fasion. And in Star Trek, when the power goes out they also still have emergency lights and intra-ship communications, meaning what happened is that they kept their ship's functionality segmented into tiers and that the most fundamental necessities are on a deeply redundant system. And the failure wasn't at that level. Which would make sense.

3) Inertia - Star Trek uses inertial dampening fields. Them being thrown around when they get hit is kinda stupid, unless the ship precalculated what fields would be needed before it accelerated (and doesn't have time to do that when something hits them).

4) FTL Communications - Subspace communications. Also Star Trek has imaginary particles that are faster than light (tachyons - I looked it up).

5) Bunched Up - Planets and shiat, yes. Fleets... eh, maybe they just like flying close together. Maybe it has an advantage to their shields. Or whatever, the point is that's a stupid argument.

6) Communicate with aliens - Actually they are approaching this from the entirely wrong point of view. If you have a show that has human and alien interaction past a certain level, there would necessarily need to be a system of communication, whether it's something categorical like a translator or just learning their system of language. If you learned their system of language, it would be only a matter of time before someone was like fark this I'm making a computer do this for me.

7) Ray guns - To have an effective ray gun you would need to generate a shiat ton of power. But this is hardly a problem if your show is premised in a world of interstellar travel.

8) Cheap energy - We already have nuclear powered submarines.

9) FTL but no time change - This is the same thing as the FTL travel. Most sci-fi has the ship not travel in the normal spatial dimensions, so you would only be going FTL relative to those dimensions.

10) Radiation - Lots of sci-fi ships have shielding against radiation.

This list is stupid.
 
2012-08-23 11:31:50 AM  

dai the flu: studebaker hoch: TyrantII

He's talking about 1G constant acceleration, which typically posits that you reach 99% the speed of light in ~1/2 year. Particles of matter hitting you at those speeds are very, very bad.

Really though, the answer is not to go close to C. So instead of a 4+1 year trip to the closest star, take a 40 year trip.

But then you run into problems of fuel.

I think the way we'll really do it when we do it is just build collossal ships, and plan on voyages lasting lifetimes or more.

That would get us to nearby stars eventually. Thing is, the ships have to be totally self sustaining over the long haul through the cold of space.

Also, you have to have an all-volunteer crew essentially signing up to serve life sentences on this thing. What sounds cool today might not be so much fun anymore when you're 20 years older.

And we can't speak for the children of the space voyagers, who did NOT sign up for the ride. They may very well revolt, and in a generation, turn that boat right back around again and come back home.

You'd have to make the ship so huge that there wouldn't be a feeling of being captive.

We don't feel stuck on Earth, not most of us, because it's huge and really nice.

We'd need some kind of ship that nobody would want to leave to return to Earth.

If I were a struggling science fiction writer, I would be stealing this right now...

/alas, I can't even speel


Macross frontier had something like this.
Multiple massive colony ships where most people didn't really feel the need to leave. The destination didn't seem per determined.

/and macross space travel rules seem arbitrary.
/rondevous with Rama, dark city, and a number of other fictions played with the idea too.
 
2012-08-23 11:40:11 AM  
Also somewhat related to the "revolution on a starship" theme, Last Exile played with the idea in an interesting way.
Most of the colonists had long forgotten that they were on a ship and failing life support lead to wars between nations. 

/Or that's how I remember it, anyway.
/I'm starting to with I was a fiction author so I could steal my own ideas.
 
2012-08-23 11:42:10 AM  

way south: Also somewhat related to the "revolution on a starship" theme, Last Exile played with the idea in an interesting way.
Most of the colonists had long forgotten that they were on a ship and failing life support lead to wars between nations. 

/Or that's how I remember it, anyway.
/I'm starting to with I was a fiction author so I could steal my own ideas.


I think they were actually colonists: *exile* was the ship, but it was also the life support/terraformer for the weird twin-planet thingy they colonized.

/DID YOU KNOW THERE'S A SEQUEL?!
 
2012-08-23 11:53:11 AM  

Felgraf: way south: Also somewhat related to the "revolution on a starship" theme, Last Exile played with the idea in an interesting way.
Most of the colonists had long forgotten that they were on a ship and failing life support lead to wars between nations. 

/Or that's how I remember it, anyway.
/I'm starting to with wish I was a fiction author so I could steal my own ideas.

I think they were actually colonists: *exile* was the ship, but it was also the life support/terraformer for the weird twin-planet thingy they colonized.

/DID YOU KNOW THERE'S A SEQUEL?!


I'm finally getting around to watching it.

/I wasn't quite sure if it was a sequal or a spin-off.
/Halfway through, Still not sure...
/NO SPOILERS! (he says, after Spoiling the original Last Exile).
 
2012-08-23 12:05:36 PM  

bbfreak: Meh, better link of myths about space travel.


thanks for that
 
2012-08-23 12:06:08 PM  

way south: Felgraf: way south: Also somewhat related to the "revolution on a starship" theme, Last Exile played with the idea in an interesting way.
Most of the colonists had long forgotten that they were on a ship and failing life support lead to wars between nations. 

/Or that's how I remember it, anyway.
/I'm starting to with wish I was a fiction author so I could steal my own ideas.

I think they were actually colonists: *exile* was the ship, but it was also the life support/terraformer for the weird twin-planet thingy they colonized.

/DID YOU KNOW THERE'S A SEQUEL?!

I'm finally getting around to watching it.

/I wasn't quite sure if it was a sequal or a spin-off.
/Halfway through, Still not sure...
/NO SPOILERS! (he says, after Spoiling the original Last Exile).


I actually haven't watched any of the sequel yet, I just know it exists!

/Gotta get my GF to watch the first one first.
 
2012-08-23 12:07:03 PM  

mr lawson: Damn! Quantum Apostrophe got you all worked up!
Good job Q.A.!
Lest anybody does not know, I am the epitome of what Q.A. calls a space nutter.
With that said, he does bring a much need balanced voice in regards to space exploration.


No, he does not. He contributes nothing of value except pithy commentary, usually one-liners, in any discussion remotely centered around space exploration. Not quite a Bevets- or Skinnyhead-class troll, mind you, but he's trying.

There is nothing wrong with good discussion on the merits and practicalities of space travel (or medical science), and several posters have contributed postively to the discussion. I myself look forward to a day where human walk on other worlds, but acknowledge the current practical limitations on energy production, human physiology, and cosmic distances. Perhaps our future resembles more a "uploaded intelligence in an STL Monolith" a la Arthur C. Clarke. Who knows?

You will get nothing, however, from Q.A. except comebacks and flamebait. Best to just let him post without comment and move to more relevant discussion.
 
2012-08-23 12:19:29 PM  
way south: Also somewhat related to the "revolution on a starship" theme, Last Exile played with the idea in an interesting way.
Most of the colonists had long forgotten that they were on a ship and failing life support lead to wars between nations. 

/Or that's how I remember it, anyway.
/I'm starting to with I was a fiction author so I could steal my own ideas.


Sort of like life on Earth.

People tend to forget the earth is technically a biosphere spaceship, orbiting a power source, dragging us around the galaxy, which is puling us through the universe.
 
2012-08-23 12:36:52 PM  

TyrantII: way south: Also somewhat related to the "revolution on a starship" theme, Last Exile played with the idea in an interesting way.
Most of the colonists had long forgotten that they were on a ship and failing life support lead to wars between nations. 

/Or that's how I remember it, anyway.
/I'm starting to with I was a fiction author so I could steal my own ideas.

Sort of like life on Earth.

People tend to forget the earth is technically a biosphere spaceship, orbiting a power source, dragging us around the galaxy, which is puling us through the universe.


That is a great way of framing the climate control debate, minus the magic gizmo that fixes everything in the end.

/I eagerly await your screenplay.
 
2012-08-23 01:22:35 PM  

KellyX: From what I always see, fusion power is the big daddy of most civilizations in scifi, once you hit that, energy starts becoming less an issue and you can start investing resources into other areas of development.


Once the fusion reactors are online, most every future fantasy can be worked toward.

NO LIFE EXTENSION OR SPACESHIPS UNTIL WE GET FUSION REACTORS!

j/k, just had to take a shot at someone thinking it's an either/or proposition, as though all the high level physicists would have gone into molecular genetics and the like, or that scientists are fungible, like turning over research points in Civ/Alpha Centauri changes instantly whatever everyone was working on.
 
2012-08-23 01:24:30 PM  

way south: Also somewhat related to the "revolution on a starship" theme, Last Exile played with the idea in an interesting way.
Most of the colonists had long forgotten that they were on a ship and failing life support lead to wars between nations. 

/Or that's how I remember it, anyway.
/I'm starting to with I was a fiction author so I could steal my own ideas.


Phantasy Star II and III?
 
2012-08-23 01:28:21 PM  

stewmadness: bbfreak: Meh, better link of myths about space travel.

thanks for that


No problem. :) He also has one on Space Weapon Myths you might enjoy.
 
2012-08-23 01:41:12 PM  

Fano: KellyX: From what I always see, fusion power is the big daddy of most civilizations in scifi, once you hit that, energy starts becoming less an issue and you can start investing resources into other areas of development.

Once the fusion reactors are online, most every future fantasy can be worked toward.

NO LIFE EXTENSION OR SPACESHIPS UNTIL WE GET FUSION REACTORS!

j/k, just had to take a shot at someone thinking it's an either/or proposition, as though all the high level physicists would have gone into molecular genetics and the like, or that scientists are fungible, like turning over research points in Civ/Alpha Centauri changes instantly whatever everyone was working on.


I don't believe I was taking an either/or position, was just stating how it seems to go in scifi stories.

And I guess at the same time I was pointing out once the energy problem gets solved, a lot of the other advances start to become priorities.

Personally, I'm of the opinion yes, fusion will be very important, but as a species we need to evolve ourselves so we can go to the stars. That probably means one of two things, or a combination of the two... Genetically engineer ourselves, or become cyborgs.
 
2012-08-23 01:50:02 PM  

KellyX: Fano: KellyX: From what I always see, fusion power is the big daddy of most civilizations in scifi, once you hit that, energy starts becoming less an issue and you can start investing resources into other areas of development.

Once the fusion reactors are online, most every future fantasy can be worked toward.

NO LIFE EXTENSION OR SPACESHIPS UNTIL WE GET FUSION REACTORS!

j/k, just had to take a shot at someone thinking it's an either/or proposition, as though all the high level physicists would have gone into molecular genetics and the like, or that scientists are fungible, like turning over research points in Civ/Alpha Centauri changes instantly whatever everyone was working on.

I don't believe I was taking an either/or position, was just stating how it seems to go in scifi stories.

And I guess at the same time I was pointing out once the energy problem gets solved, a lot of the other advances start to become priorities.

Personally, I'm of the opinion yes, fusion will be very important, but as a species we need to evolve ourselves so we can go to the stars. That probably means one of two things, or a combination of the two... Genetically engineer ourselves, or become cyborgs.


;) not you taking the either or. Someone else in thread, with dozens of posts.
 
2012-08-23 01:57:19 PM  
I'm surprised nobody mentioned any of the Ender's game books yet.
 
2012-08-23 02:26:22 PM  
Rolander:

I'm surprised nobody mentioned any of the Ender's game books yet.

High-school porn for people who got picked on for being video game nerds?

You're right... It should be mentioned here.
 
2012-08-23 02:55:53 PM  

Fano: KellyX: Fano: KellyX: From what I always see, fusion power is the big daddy of most civilizations in scifi, once you hit that, energy starts becoming less an issue and you can start investing resources into other areas of development.

Once the fusion reactors are online, most every future fantasy can be worked toward.

NO LIFE EXTENSION OR SPACESHIPS UNTIL WE GET FUSION REACTORS!

j/k, just had to take a shot at someone thinking it's an either/or proposition, as though all the high level physicists would have gone into molecular genetics and the like, or that scientists are fungible, like turning over research points in Civ/Alpha Centauri changes instantly whatever everyone was working on.

I don't believe I was taking an either/or position, was just stating how it seems to go in scifi stories.

And I guess at the same time I was pointing out once the energy problem gets solved, a lot of the other advances start to become priorities.

Personally, I'm of the opinion yes, fusion will be very important, but as a species we need to evolve ourselves so we can go to the stars. That probably means one of two things, or a combination of the two... Genetically engineer ourselves, or become cyborgs.

;) not you taking the either or. Someone else in thread, with dozens of posts.


I sorta skip around and something stands out as interesting or not. Sometimes when I revisit a thread and see the same person posting a lot, I figure they're arguing and tend to ignore it... Were you talking about a certain someone who shiats all over these type of conversations telling us YOU CAN'T EVER GO FASTER THAN THE SPEED OF LIGHT! ALIENS DON'T EXIST! that sort of shiat?
 
2012-08-23 03:04:30 PM  

KellyX: Fano: KellyX: Fano: KellyX: From what I always see, fusion power is the big daddy of most civilizations in scifi, once you hit that, energy starts becoming less an issue and you can start investing resources into other areas of development.

Once the fusion reactors are online, most every future fantasy can be worked toward.

NO LIFE EXTENSION OR SPACESHIPS UNTIL WE GET FUSION REACTORS!

j/k, just had to take a shot at someone thinking it's an either/or proposition, as though all the high level physicists would have gone into molecular genetics and the like, or that scientists are fungible, like turning over research points in Civ/Alpha Centauri changes instantly whatever everyone was working on.

I don't believe I was taking an either/or position, was just stating how it seems to go in scifi stories.

And I guess at the same time I was pointing out once the energy problem gets solved, a lot of the other advances start to become priorities.

Personally, I'm of the opinion yes, fusion will be very important, but as a species we need to evolve ourselves so we can go to the stars. That probably means one of two things, or a combination of the two... Genetically engineer ourselves, or become cyborgs.

;) not you taking the either or. Someone else in thread, with dozens of posts.

I sorta skip around and something stands out as interesting or not. Sometimes when I revisit a thread and see the same person posting a lot, I figure they're arguing and tend to ignore it... Were you talking about a certain someone who shiats all over these type of conversations telling us YOU CAN'T EVER GO FASTER THAN THE SPEED OF LIGHT! ALIENS DON'T EXIST! that sort of shiat?


He's usually shouting more of "WE'LL NEVER LEAVE THE PLANET BECAUSE WE WON'T ADVANCE OUR KNOWLEDGE OF PHYSICS AND SPACE AND ENGINEERING EVARRRRR!! FOCUS ON LIFE EXTENSION SO I DON'T HAVE TO BE SO DEATHLY AFRAID OF GETTING OLD!"
 
2012-08-23 04:53:12 PM  
#11
www.coolgizmotoys.com
Milk isn't blue. Seriously, did the special effects people even try?
 
2012-08-23 06:31:59 PM  
Ships traveling at faster than light can communicate with other ships or planets

just use the Ansible
 
2012-08-23 07:11:26 PM  

rickycal78: WE'LL NEVER LEAVE THE PLANET BECAUSE WE WON'T ADVANCE OUR KNOWLEDGE OF PHYSICS AND SPACE AND ENGINEERING EVARRRRR!!


That's right, we won't.

rickycal78: FOCUS ON LIFE EXTENSION SO I DON'T HAVE TO BE SO DEATHLY AFRAID OF GETTING OLD!"


But being deathly afraid of hypothetical killer asteroids and worrying about the species while being against socialized health care, that makes all kinds of sense... 

10 years, chump.
 
2012-08-23 07:15:15 PM  

Quantum Apostrophe: rickycal78: WE'LL NEVER LEAVE THE PLANET BECAUSE WE WON'T ADVANCE OUR KNOWLEDGE OF PHYSICS AND SPACE AND ENGINEERING EVARRRRR!!

That's right, we won't.

rickycal78: FOCUS ON LIFE EXTENSION SO I DON'T HAVE TO BE SO DEATHLY AFRAID OF GETTING OLD!"

But being deathly afraid of hypothetical killer asteroids and worrying about the species while being against socialized health care, that makes all kinds of sense... 

10 years, chump.


You aren't even trying anymore. At least last night you were doing a decent job of trolling all of us. It's clear you either have no grasp of logic or reasoning, or you're trolling. No one is stupid as you were last night, not even my tarded pilot ex girlfriend.
 
2012-08-23 07:40:28 PM  
Oh stop already. I came back to read some of the posts, and you two are still at it. Stop already. Grow up. Go outside and play, whatever, but it's tiring seeing the bickering. It's a really great article, and you've both spoiled the hell out of it.
 
2012-08-23 07:47:08 PM  
Quantum Apostrophe: rickycal78: WE'LL NEVER LEAVE THE PLANET BECAUSE WE WON'T ADVANCE OUR KNOWLEDGE OF PHYSICS AND SPACE AND ENGINEERING EVARRRRR!!

That's right, we won't.

rickycal78: FOCUS ON LIFE EXTENSION SO I DON'T HAVE TO BE SO DEATHLY AFRAID OF GETTING OLD!"

But being deathly afraid of hypothetical killer asteroids and worrying about the species while being against socialized health care, that makes all kinds of sense... 

10 years, chump.


Good morning! How were the breakfast pizza rolls?
 
2012-08-23 10:00:56 PM  

MythDragon: #11
[www.coolgizmotoys.com image 400x355]
Milk isn't blue. Seriously, did the special effects people even try?


Who said it was milk? It could be a plant extract.
 
2012-08-23 10:05:28 PM  

indarwinsshadow: Oh stop already. I came back to read some of the posts, and you two are still at it. Stop already. Grow up. Go outside and play, whatever, but it's tiring seeing the bickering. It's a really great article, and you've both spoiled the hell out of it.


No, it wasn't.
 
2012-08-23 10:39:52 PM  

lohphat: MythDragon: #11
[www.coolgizmotoys.com image 400x355]
Milk isn't blue. Seriously, did the special effects people even try?

Who said it was milk? It could be a plant extract.


Bantha semen.
 
2012-08-23 11:26:32 PM  

Fano: lohphat: MythDragon: #11
[www.coolgizmotoys.com image 400x355]
Milk isn't blue. Seriously, did the special effects people even try?

Who said it was milk? It could be a plant extract.

Bantha semen.


That was very wrong, and you should be ashamed of yourself.
 
2012-08-23 11:30:55 PM  

MythDragon: #11
[www.coolgizmotoys.com image 400x355]
Milk isn't blue. Seriously, did the special effects people even try?


3.bp.blogspot.com
 
2012-08-24 02:23:36 AM  
Humans evolved to be part of this planet, and are a part of it.

No need to leave it.
 
2012-08-24 06:46:44 AM  

studebaker hoch: Humans evolved to be part of this planet, and are a part of it.

No need to leave it.


Humans evolved as part of an ecosystem that no longer exists.
We left our rightful place in nature a long time ago.
 
2012-08-24 08:51:18 AM  

studebaker hoch: Humans evolved to be part of this planet, and are a part of it.

No need to leave it.


We evolved to reform the environment around us to suit our needs. If we go off-planet, obviously we have to take some of the planet with us because we need some of the biosphere for sustenance. Beyond that, there are extinction-level events that can happen that we can't prevent from killing off most or all of our species if we stay on the planet. It's a miracle we survived the bottle-neck 150,000 years ago.

Saying there is " No need to leave it." is saying " Maybe if we put our head in the sand, it'll be enough to protect us from going extinct someday." when it's self-evident that extinction-level events are inevitable on long time-scales and we would need much, much higher-level technology and infrastructure than we do now to mitigate their results. That higher-level technology is not as important if most of us aren't on this muddy rock to begin with when they happen.
 
2012-08-24 11:14:47 AM  
I'd kinda like to see us get off this rock and go running around the solar system, myself.
 
2012-08-25 01:59:12 AM  
Of course we'll have a presence on the Moon, and eventually Mars.

What I mean is, no need to go to other star systems. Serious PITA and we've got it really good where we are now.
 
Displayed 245 of 245 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter






In Other Media
  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report