<div class="quote_poster">Quote:</div><div class="quote_post">Astronomers have found the most Earth-like planet outside our Solar System to date, a world which could have water running on its surface. The planet orbits the faint star Gliese 581, which is 20.5 light-years away in the constellation Libra. Scientists made the discovery using the Eso 3.6m Telescope in Chile. They say the benign temperatures on the planet mean any water there could exist in liquid form, and this raises the chances it could also harbour life. "We have estimated that the mean temperature of this 'super-Earth' lies between 0 and 40 degrees Celsius, and water would thus be liquid," explained Stephane Udry of the Geneva Observatory, lead author of the scientific paper reporting the result. "Moreover, its radius should be only 1.5 times the Earth's radius, and models predict that the planet should be either rocky - like our Earth - or covered with oceans." Xavier Delfosse, a member of the team from Grenoble University, added: "Liquid water is critical to life as we know it." He believes the planet may now become a very important target for future space missions dedicated to the search for extra-terrestrial life. These missions will put telescopes in space that can discern the tell-tale light "signatures" that might be associated with biological processes. The observatories would seek to identify trace atmospheric gases such as methane, and even markers for chlorophyll, the pigment in Earth plants that plays a critical role in photosynthesis.</div> Source
Too bad our space traveling technologies are pretty lousy. 20.5 light years? That would probably mean a probe would take many thousand years to get there, if not more.
<div class="quote_poster">Bahir Wrote</div><div class="quote_post">Too bad our space traveling technologies are pretty lousy. 20.5 light years? That would probably mean a probe would take many thousand years to get there, if not more.</div> Our grandkids will be true space travelers.
<div class="quote_poster">Bahir Wrote</div><div class="quote_post">Too bad our space traveling technologies are pretty lousy. 20.5 light years? That would probably mean a probe would take many thousand years to get there, if not more.</div> Too bad NASA sucks balls, and should focus more on exploring things like this instead of going back to the damn moon.
<div class="quote_poster">Sasha Wrote</div><div class="quote_post">Too bad NASA sucks balls, and should focus more on exploring things like this instead of going back to the damn moon.</div> U must understand going back to the moon is key for future space travel. The moon is where we will test technology when it comes to other planets. think of the moon as a testing facility. What are we supposed to do? Go strait to the moons of jupiter without testing technology at a place far more closer to earth?
Well, what I would like is for someone to send a probe to Jupiter's moon Europa. Theories has it that it that the surface is made of ice, and that there might be oceans of water beneath it. That might lead to a possibility of life. The probe would need drills of course.
<div class="quote_poster">Bahir Wrote</div><div class="quote_post">Well, what I would like is for someone to send a probe to Jupiter's moon Europa. Theories has it that it that the surface is made of ice, and that there might be oceans of water beneath it. That might lead to a possibility of life. The probe would need drills of course.</div> We will see that in our life time. It just takes years to imagine draft and build then test the machines that will make it happen. Although it seems slow, technology is moving ahead fatser and faster as the years move forward. I imagine we will eventually build a space staion on the moon. And this would become the new Nasa Head quarters. And with zero atmosphere it would be easy to lauch and land spacecraft without the intense heat of reentry to earth. thats alot of time and money saved in repairs, man power, and weather delays.
Hmmm 20.5 lightyears away, well if we get a Nasa space shuttle going 30 000 km/h it will take 763 826 years to get there.
Just calculated it, but it would take approx 8 times the world's current annual energy consumption (379.7 Quad BTU) to get an empty NASA space shuttle (165 000 lb or 75 000 kg) to light speed (300 000 000 m/s). It can't actually reach light speed but probably like 95% or something. I messed up something, the world production of energy in 1998 (turns out to be a later source than I thought) was 379.7 Quad BTU. I'll try to find out consumption. Turns out 2004, Worldwide annual energy consumption was 446 Quadrillion (10^15) BTUs. So my number was 3200 Quad BTUs/446 Quad BTUs, is 7.2 times World consumption.
<div class="quote_poster">Skiptomylue11 Wrote</div><div class="quote_post">Just calculated it, but it would take approx 8 times the world's current annual energy consumption (379.7 Quad BTU) to get an empty NASA space shuttle (165 000 lb or 75 000 kg) to light speed (300 000 000 m/s). It can't actually reach light speed but probably like 95% or something. I messed up something, the world production of energy in 1998 (turns out to be a later source than I thought) was 379.7 Quad BTU. I'll try to find out consumption. Turns out 2004, Worldwide annual energy consumption was 446 Quadrillion (10^15) BTUs. So my number was 3200 Quad BTUs/446 Quad BTUs, is 7.2 times World consumption.</div> You've gotta be really smart. I mean it. Anyhow, I'd like it for space technology to develop, but right now, there are bigger issues on the planet earth. They should invest in fusion powerplant research.
<div class="quote_poster">Bahir Wrote</div><div class="quote_post">You've gotta be really smart. I mean it. Anyhow, I'd like it for space technology to develop, but right now, there are bigger issues on the planet earth. They should invest in fusion powerplant research.</div>Thanks, but all I'm doing is using a few formulas, e = mc^2/ (1- v^2/c^2), before I was lazy and just used the Kinetic energy formula E = 1/2mv^2, but that doesn't work apparently at speeds near light speed. And my earlier (Kinetic Energy Formula) calculations were actually wrong. Here are my new calculations where, c= lightspeed, space shuttle mass = 75 000 kg To accelerate the NASA Space Shuttle to given speed (or decelerate from). Space Shuttle @ 99.99% lightspeed: 446000 Quad BTUs --- 1000 times current World annual energy consumption Space Shuttle @ 99% lightspeed: 39000 Quadrillion BTUs --- 87 times the World's annual energy consumption Space Shuttle @ 98% c: 25800 --- 57 Space Shuttle @ 95% c: 14100 --- 32 Space Shuttle @ 90% c: 8300 --- 18.5 Space Shuttle @ 75% c: 3274 --- 7.3 Space Shuttle @ 50% c: 1000 --- 2.2 Space Shuttle @ 25% c: 209 --- .47 Space Shuttle @ 10% c: 32 --- .07 Space Shuttle @ 5% c: 8 --- .02 Space Shuttle @ 1% c: 0.32 --- .001 If Space shuttle was completely made of fuel, and we had the technology, what would maximum speeds possible depending of the fuel used. Matter//Anti-Matter reactions: 71% lightspeed Binding energy of Helium Nucleus: 8.6% c Nuclear Fusion: 5.7% c Nuclear Fission: 3.2% c (Uranium-235) <---- This is what our nuclear power plants do Liquid Hydrogen: 0.004% c (This is what our current Rocket Fuel is.)
<div class="quote_poster">Skiptomylue11 Wrote</div><div class="quote_post">Thanks, but all I'm doing is using a few formulas, e = mc^2/ (1- v^2/c^2), before I was lazy and just used the Kinetic energy formula E = 1/2mv^2, but that doesn't work apparently at speeds near light speed. And my earlier (Kinetic Energy Formula) calculations were actually wrong. Here are my new calculations where, c= lightspeed, space shuttle mass = 75 000 kg To accelerate the NASA Space Shuttle to given speed (or decelerate from). Space Shuttle @ 99.99% lightspeed: 446000--- 1000 (Quad BTUs---#of times world annual energy consumption) Space Shuttle @ 99% lightspeed: 39000 --- 87 Space Shuttle @ 98% c: 25800 --- 57 Space Shuttle @ 95% c: 14100 --- 32 Space Shuttle @ 90% c: 8300 --- 18.5 Space Shuttle @ 75% c: 3274 --- 7.3 Space Shuttle @ 50% c: 1000 --- 2.2 Space Shuttle @ 25% c: 209 --- .47 Space Shuttle @ 10% c: 32 --- .07 Space Shuttle @ 5% c: 8 --- .02 Space Shuttle @ 1% c: 0.32 --- .001 If Space shuttle was completely made of fuel, and we had the technology, what would maximum speeds possible depending of the fuel used. Matter//Anti-Matter reactions: 71% lightspeed Binding energy of Helium Nucleus: 8.6% c Nuclear Fusion: 5.7% c Nuclear Fission: 3.2% c (Uranium-235) <---- This is what our nuclear power plants do Liquid Hydrogen: 0.004% c (This is what our current Rocket Fuel is.)</div> I don't understand one thing.
<div class="quote_poster">Mercury Wrote</div><div class="quote_post">I don't understand one thing.</div> lol, I understand that, it's a lot of numbers and uses units of measurement that are not common in everyday use. Probably what it would be like for me to read something explaining the composition of carbon chains in fat vs. protein. (I think Protein has carbon chains sometimes). The First part: It shows what kind of energy would be needed to get the NASA shuttle at certain speeds. ie. 50% lightspeed, It would use 1000 Quadrillion BTUs (its a unit of measuring energy). The entire world's annual consumption of energy in 2004 (all countries) was 446 Quadrillion BTUs. So that would mean to propell this little ship to 50% lightspeed would uses about 2.2 times what the entire human population uses in one year. The Second Part: It takes the energy that can be derived from certain high energy materials. Ie Gasoline produces a lot of energy when combusted, while something like wood produces less when you use the same amount of each. Then knowing the energy density, I found out what the maximum speed can be attained using each fuel. For example using Nuclear fission, the fastest speed that can be attained is 3.2% the speed of light. Conclusion: If I were to make a conclusion, AntiMatter: Anti-matter is hard to harvest and for every 100 Joules of energy spent, they get less than 1 Joule of energy in Anti-Matter. As well its incredibly difficult to store even in tiny quantities. So its not likely for space travel. Nuclear Fusion:, might be possible, requires very high temperatures to my knowledge. If somehow the energy can be directed properly we could attain speeds theoretically of 8.6% lightspeed. To get to nearest star (other than Sun), it would take about 49 years. Nuclear Fission: same thing, how to properly direct it is a problem, if that can be solved perfectly speeds up to 3.2% lightspeed could be attained. To get to nearest star would take 133 years. Liquid Hydrogen: We can properly direct it to thrust our modern spaceships, however even in its most perfect theoretical conditions it can only reach 0.004% lightspeed. To reach the nearest star (other than the Sun) would take 115 000 years. I think that my Hydrogen calculations actually have to be multiplied by 32, because in order for Hydrogen to combust it requires two Oxygen atoms which each weigh 16 times the weight of Hydrogen.
<div class="quote_poster">Skiptomylue11 Wrote</div><div class="quote_post">lol, its understandable. The First part: It shows what kind of energy would be needed to get the NASA shuttle at certain speeds. ie. 50% lightspeed, It would use 1000 Quadrillion BTUs (its a unit of measuring energy). The entire world's annual consumption of energy in 2004 (all countries) was 446 Quadrillion BTUs. So that would mean to propell this little ship to 50% lightspeed would uses about 2.2 times what the entire human population uses in one year. The Second Part: It takes the energy that can be derived from certain high energy materials. Ie Gasoline produces a lot of energy when combusted, while something like wood produces less when you use the same amount of each. Then knowing the energy density, I found out what the maximum speed can be attained using each fuel. For example using Nuclear fission, the fastest speed that can be attained is 3.2% the speed of light.</div> All of those shuttle are out of date. Dateing back to over 20 years ago. Technology has really advance since then. Those ship are only useful for getting into space. I would think that a current ship would be used to get the new ships into space and for that reason alone. We wouldnt used fuel to go that far we would use space sails or ionic propulsion. not contemperary fuel.
<div class="quote_poster">michiganave17 Wrote</div><div class="quote_post">All of those shuttle are out of date. Dateing back to over 20 years ago. Technology has really advance since then. Those ship are only useful for getting into space. I would think that a current ship would be used to get the new ships into space and for that reason alone. We wouldnt used fuel to go that far we would use space sails or ionic propulsion. not contemperary fuel.</div>Well ionic propulsion isn't actually a fuel source, it is the method of propulsion, and I believe that it accelerates particles in very small amounts of ions to high speeds so acceleration would be very slow. My guess is that the Solar sail, gets more ineffective as the ship moves away from the star (like 1/4 lightyear away). As well I believe that it only accelerates the ship slowly as well.
I think that we should first focus on how to stop large impacts on earth. because we have about I think 4 billoin years left before this solar system is consumed by the sun. That means we will have all of that time to conquer the speed of light and maybe conquer the riddle of the wormwhole. but if we continue to get large impacts we will eventually be put back into the stone age and maybe anhilated.
<div class="quote_poster">A.F. Venom Wrote</div><div class="quote_post">When I cop the millenium falcon I'll check this place out.</div> Could it be Krypton?
