TALK STORY

Stephen Hawking: We must move to another solar system

POSTED BY: STEAMER
UPDATED: Saturday, December 2, 2006 09:02
SHORT URL:
VIEWED: 1752
PAGE 1 of 1

Thursday, November 30, 2006 5:26 PM

STEAMER


I just came across a very, very interesting article on Comcast: http://www.comcast.net/news/science/index.jsp?cat=SCIENCE&fn=/2006/11/
30/531751.html&cvqh=itn_hawking


It appears Prof. Hawking and Uncle Joss are thinking along similar lines. I was going to ask if anybody else agreed with this assessment, but hey - we're Browncoats, right? We all know this is going to happen some time within the next 500 years, right? (Actually, in the fanfic I'm working on, I have Mal reflecting that the exodus happened in the late 21st century. *bites fingernails*)

Don't know about the rest of you, I just thought the article would be of strong interest to my fellow 'Coats.



Inara's wile
Quickly renders
In a twist
Mal's suspenders
FIREFLY

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, November 30, 2006 6:11 PM

FINN MAC CUMHAL


Hawking’s may be right, though we’re talking about events on a geologic scale, which isn’t really a timeframe that makes since to humans. The entire span of human civilizations has existed for only about 5000 years. On the other hand, it could be tens to hundreds of thousands of years before any kind of geologic event occurs that would threaten human life on this planet.

I’m not sure what I think about the matter/anti-matter engine bit. I hate to go against Hawking, if indeed he actually said this, but anti-matter is not a particularly easy material to produce. At our current rate of production it would take longer then the universe may be likely to exist to produce enough of it to fuel a spaceship to the closest star outside of our solar system. I’d say nuclear propulsion is probably the more feasible.




Nihil est incertius vulgo, nihil obscurius voluntate hominum, nihil fallacius ratione tota comitiorum.

Nothing is more unpredictable than the mob, nothing more obscure than public opinion, nothing more deceptive than the whole political system.

-- Cicero

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, December 1, 2006 6:06 AM

CYBERSNARK


Don't forget that Hawking is an unapologetic Trekkie (as am I). Matter/antimatter reaction has a certain cachet --and is scientifically feasable. The only problem is being able to produce/store the stuff, which is a fairly simple technological problem ("simple" in the sense that we know it's physically possible to produce it, we just need a more efficient means of doing so --unlike FTL, which requires both completely new technology and a new grasp of physics).

-----
We applied the cortical electrodes but were unable to get a neural reaction from either patient.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, December 1, 2006 8:30 AM

DESKTOPHIPPIE


Okay, that makes it official. My New Year's resolution is to learn Chinese! If we're going to live in the Firefly 'Verse I'm darn well gonna be ready!




NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, December 1, 2006 10:55 PM

SERYN


I was very excited by the 'would only take around six years' to travel to the nearest star- I would have thought even with the engines he spoke of, it would be those ships in which the people board and its their great great great great great grandkids who get off.

or those ones with the big freezers.

but six years? i'm there! (and plenty of time to learn mandarin along the way)



Isn't sanity really a one trick pony, anyway? I mean all you get is one trick, rational thinking! But when you're good and crazy...ooh hoo hoo hoo... the skys the limit!
http://www.myspace.com/seryndippyt

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, December 2, 2006 12:45 AM

RABBIT2


Trouble is, people read those articles wich say things like `by rocket it would take 50,000 years to get to the nearest star` overlooking the fact that rockets only accellerate for a short period of time before using up all the available fuel.
If you had something with the accelleration of a Saturn V but could keep it up for about a year then you would probably have a viable interstellar drive. Present day spacecraft have to spend a long time coasting and use gravitational slingshots to accelerate or change course so it takes them ages to get anywhere. A bit like travelling between say New York and Boston and having to refuel in Wellington, New Zealand.
What our civilisation needs to do right now is to get off this damn rock and start exploiting the rest of the Solar system. We need to start thinking in terms of building experimental colonies on the Moon and Mars and learn how to constuct large, permenent habitats/stations in space.

Once we have been doing that for a while then the jump to the nearer stars will be a lot easier.
Judging by some of the stuff I have been reading recently interstellar space may not be as empty as previously thought, there appear to be a lot of objects ranging from Jupiter sized bodies up to `Brown Dwarf` almost stars out there and probably some of them will have resource exploitable moons.
Perhaps its possible to make the jump in stages rather than an all out run for Alpha Centauri.



--------------------------------------------------

Flight Instructor: Son, know what the first rule of flying is?
Me: Don`t crash?

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, December 2, 2006 5:27 AM

SERYN


i would have thought that if its that close, our energies would be better spent in developing methods of terraforming and identifying likely planets.

Can we even see other solar sytems in detail yet? have we identified other possible stars with planets in its hospitable zones?

Isn't sanity really a one trick pony, anyway? I mean all you get is one trick, rational thinking! But when you're good and crazy...ooh hoo hoo hoo... the skys the limit!
http://www.myspace.com/seryndippyt

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, December 2, 2006 5:38 AM

FINN MAC CUMHAL


Quote:

Originally posted by seryn:
i would have thought that if its that close, our energies would be better spent in developing methods of terraforming and identifying likely planets.

Can we even see other solar sytems in detail yet? have we identified other possible stars with planets in its hospitable zones?

No. We have no idea what we’re doing. Hopefully and probably that knowledge will increase in the future, but still the first trip to another solar system will be a lot like Columbus’s first trip to the Americans. We’ll aim our ships “that-a-way” and hope we run into something good along the way.



Nihil est incertius vulgo, nihil obscurius voluntate hominum, nihil fallacius ratione tota comitiorum.

Nothing is more unpredictable than the mob, nothing more obscure than public opinion, nothing more deceptive than the whole political system.

-- Cicero

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, December 2, 2006 6:29 AM

DONCOAT


There have been many, many proposals -- both in science fiction and non-fiction -- as to how we might progress toward colonizing other star systems.

The most likely (in my opinion) proposals begin with robotic explorers sent off to nearby stars that have been selected as "likely" places for Earth-like worlds. (That selection would be based on images from large space-based telescopes that can resolve planet-sized bodies around nearby stars.)

There have been some very slick proposals as to how to send the robots, such as laser-driven lightsails and Bussard ramjets (which pull in and compress interstellar hydrogen gas and use it in fusion reactors for propulsion). There's even a clever way to use the light from a laser here to decelerate a spacecraft to a stop at a distant star.

Once the robots find a suitable planet, they could (if so designed) begin the process of terraforming so the new home is ready when the colonists arrive.


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I'm pointin' right at it!

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, December 2, 2006 6:35 AM

CITIZEN


Quote:

Originally posted by Finn Mac Cuhmal:
I’m not sure what I think about the matter/anti-matter engine bit. I hate to go against Hawking, if indeed he actually said this, but anti-matter is not a particularly easy material to produce. At our current rate of production it would take longer then the universe may be likely to exist to produce enough of it to fuel a spaceship to the closest star outside of our solar system. I’d say nuclear propulsion is probably the more feasible.

We can't build interstellar rockets yet either, we've only got possible designs that might possibly work. I'm pretty sure he's talking about future technology, and thus given that we can't carry much in the way of fuel you'd be better off with Anti-matter as it has by far the best weight to power ratio by many factors of magnitude.

Next along would be Fusion, perhaps Anti-matter initiated Fusion, but then you have the problem of need bulkier reaction mass. Maybe you can obtain this from the interstellar field using a Bussard ram scoop, but again those are still theoretical. Actually if we ever produce an efficient system for obtaining anti-matter (that is one that can produce enough anti-matter to exceed the energy requirements of creating it) the best bet would be to syphon up hydrogen from the stellar field, produce anti-matter from some and use the rest in an annihilation reaction with the obtained anti-matter.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, December 2, 2006 6:43 AM

CITIZEN


Quote:

Originally posted by seryn:
I was very excited by the 'would only take around six years' to travel to the nearest star- I would have thought even with the engines he spoke of, it would be those ships in which the people board and its their great great great great great grandkids who get off.

You can only travel to a distant star in six years if it's less than six light years away. But because of the time dilation effects a high fractions of c the on-board time would be significantly less than that of people on Earth.

For a simplified example if you were to leave the Earth and accelerate constantly at 1g on a journey of 100ly it would take 9 years of on board ship time but ~101 years would have passed on Earth.



More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, December 2, 2006 8:45 AM

RABBIT2


On the subject of extasolar planets.
Here`s a couple of links to give you an idea of what astronomers are currenly able to detect.
http://austral.as.utexas.edu/planets/hd13189/hd13189.html
http://austral.as.utexas.edu/planets/hd37605/hd37605.html
http://austral.as.utexas.edu/planets/hd137510.html
http://austral.as.utexas.edu/planets/gamcep/gamcep.html
Remember,while we are talking here about supergiant planets this is a technology in the very early stages of development.

--------------------------------------------------

Flight Instructor: Son, know what the first rule of flying is?
Me: Don`t crash?

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, December 2, 2006 8:57 AM

ASARIAN


Quote:

Originally posted by DonCoat:

There have been some very slick proposals as to how to send the robots, such as laser-driven lightsails and Bussard ramjets (which pull in and compress interstellar hydrogen gas and use it in fusion reactors for propulsion).



Bussard collectors? Hmm, getting Startrek Voyager flash-backs. :)


--
"Mei-mei, everything I have is right here." -- Simon Tam

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, December 2, 2006 9:01 AM

THESOMNAMBULIST


Hey I refuse to become excited until my Jetpack and Hoverboard arrive in the post as was promised by scientists all those years ago when I was a kid.






www.cirqus.com

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, December 2, 2006 9:02 AM

RABBIT2


Well,I never got my Dan Dare helipak. I`m still optimisic though.

--------------------------------------------------

Flight Instructor: Son, know what the first rule of flying is?
Me: Don`t crash?

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

YOUR OPTIONS

NEW POSTS TODAY

USERPOST DATE

OTHER TOPICS

DISCUSSIONS
Canada Getting It's 1st Total Solar Eclipse In 40 Years
Mon, April 8, 2024 13:58 - 3 posts
Real or Legend, What's Your Favorite Cryptid?
Mon, April 1, 2024 04:28 - 97 posts
Greatest SF novel of all time? And why?
Sun, March 31, 2024 14:23 - 71 posts
What Song Are You Listening To, California Dreamin'
Thu, February 29, 2024 07:48 - 148 posts
S.I. go Bye Bye?
Tue, January 23, 2024 14:29 - 13 posts
EMMYS ratings tank
Sun, January 21, 2024 02:21 - 9 posts
What happened to music?
Thu, January 18, 2024 21:13 - 61 posts
ESPN stole Emmys for 13 years
Tue, January 16, 2024 21:01 - 4 posts
Your essential top ten music albums.
Fri, January 12, 2024 12:45 - 31 posts
Fukushima Nuclear Reactor Status
Tue, September 12, 2023 09:30 - 128 posts
SpaceX
Wed, August 23, 2023 13:07 - 7 posts
Special Branch XIII: Soulless
Mon, August 21, 2023 16:59 - 30 posts

FFF.NET SOCIAL