Well if we wanted to turn another planet into an Earth, then Venus would be more ideal than mars. If we just wanted a installation sustained by constant shipment of outside resources, then mars ftw, but I don't see how it would benefit us in any long-term way. And mars can't hold an atmosphere like it used to because it core dynamo stopped/solidified, taking away one of the most desirable things in a planet; a magnetic shield. Venus has a very weak one that really would not be suffiecient, but the thing is Venus [I]should[/I] actually have one. Three different scenarios could have happened. 1. The Core has solidified. Venus is pretty worthless. Probably not the case since venus appears to be a yonger earth, and we haven't solidified yet and won't anytime soon. 2. Slow spin. Venus spins a hell of a lot slower than Earth. You need that spin for convection. This probably also isn't the case since venus has so much 3. The core is so god dam hot because venus doesnt have plate technonics like we do, the core is totally liquid. If this is the case, there is hope to actually help start the process of giving venus this essential shield.

Well if we wanted to turn another planet into an Earth, then Venus would be more ideal than mars. If we just wanted a installation sustained by constant shipment of outside resources, then mars ftw, but I don't see how it would benefit us in any long-term way. And mars can't hold an atmosphere like it used to because it core dynamo stopped/solidified, taking away one of the most desirable things in a planet; a magnetic shield.
Venus has a very weak one that really would not be suffiecient, but the thing is Venus should actually have one. Three different scenarios could have happened.
1. The Core has solidified. Venus is pretty worthless. Probably not the case since venus appears to be a yonger earth, and we haven't solidified yet and won't anytime soon.
2. Slow spin. Venus spins a hell of a lot slower than Earth. You need that spin for convection. This probably also isn't the case since venus has so much
3. The core is so god dam hot because venus doesnt have plate technonics like we do, the core is totally liquid. If this is the case, there is hope to actually help start the process of giving venus this essential shield.

[quote=Cnl.Fatso] [quote]Yes, YES! And that rare metal will be 'Gundanium', strongest metal in the known universe, ideal for giant mobile-suit armor. With this, the colonies can not be ignored![/quote] That response just made my day.[/quote] Bs, everyone knows the rare metal will be Adamantium.

Quote from Cnl.Fatso

Quote

Yes, YES! And that rare metal will be 'Gundanium', strongest metal in the known universe, ideal for giant mobile-suit armor. With this, the colonies can not be ignored!

That response just made my day.

Bs, everyone knows the rare metal will be Adamantium.

[QUOTE]Although, thats only Einsteinian mechanics, our limited knowledge of physics. We could go with the popular sci-fi methods of interstellar travel if we ever try and develope an interstellar travel technology, such as the alcubierre drive (i.e. warp drive)[/QUOTE] [color=#b5b5ff]Einsteinian physics has yet to really be disproved. It's a little disingenuous to try to have a discussion about 'what we could do' if we assume that anything is possible.[/color]

Indeed, that sort of thing is best left out of this topic. I'm still waiting for WoaHorde's reply.

Indeed, that sort of thing is best left out of this topic.

I'm still waiting for WoaHorde's reply.

[QUOTE]You seem to think Ceres is a comet. I believe it's classified as a Dwarf. Also, I said a million dollars for a SOURCE. It seems you are unable to locate one.[/QUOTE] I'm bloody aware that Ceres has been classified as a dwarf planet. I used it as an example that objects in the asteroid belt contain more fresh water from Earth. As you are apparently unable to use Google and other tools: [URL=http://www.theregister.co.uk/2005/09/08/asteroid_water/]Ceres Has More Fresh Water[/URL] [QUOTE]Force = mass * acceleration For any sort of reasonable time (say hundreds of years) we would need to go several kilometers per second from the kupier belt. If the asteroid were all ice, that'd be about .9 g/cm^3. Even a tiny one, say a sphere 5 km in diameter (just for simplicity) is massive. According to my calculations, that's 4.71 E15 kg. The approximate Force required to accelerate that to even 50km/s is about 2.36*10^20 Joules. That is a massive amount of Force. Maybe you don't get how big that is. Factor in moving all that fuel across the solar system and you might realize what a bad idea this would be. Even with something like a plasma engine that would be near impossible, and definitely not worth the payload. All that water would evaporate, and you'd need to do it several hundred times to get any sort of noticeable difference.[/quote] I suggested using gravity assists for most of a journey instead of doing a steady burn. Current rocket tech can only be used effectively this way. You would use minute amounts of fuel for orbit corrections, braking, and emergencies. Forcing an object out of the Kuiper into a calculated orbit could then cause it to be transferred and break using gravity assists from the planets. Getting it down to Earth or other object wouldn't be difficult, as it would only require simple shielding.

Quote

You seem to think Ceres is a comet. I believe it's classified as a Dwarf. Also, I said a million dollars for a SOURCE. It seems you are unable to locate one.

I'm bloody aware that Ceres has been classified as a dwarf planet. I used it as an example that objects in the asteroid belt contain more fresh water from Earth. As you are apparently unable to use Google and other tools: Ceres Has More Fresh Water

Quote

Force = mass * acceleration
For any sort of reasonable time (say hundreds of years) we would need to go several kilometers per second from the kupier belt. If the asteroid were all ice, that'd be about .9 g/cm^3. Even a tiny one, say a sphere 5 km in diameter (just for simplicity) is massive.
According to my calculations, that's 4.71 E15 kg. The approximate Force required to accelerate that to even 50km/s is about 2.36*10^20 Joules. That is a massive amount of Force. Maybe you don't get how big that is. Factor in moving all that fuel across the solar system and you might realize what a bad idea this would be. Even with something like a plasma engine that would be near impossible, and definitely not worth the payload. All that water would evaporate, and you'd need to do it several hundred times to get any sort of noticeable difference.

I suggested using gravity assists for most of a journey instead of doing a steady burn. Current rocket tech can only be used effectively this way. You would use minute amounts of fuel for orbit corrections, braking, and emergencies. Forcing an object out of the Kuiper into a calculated orbit could then cause it to be transferred and break using gravity assists from the planets. Getting it down to Earth or other object wouldn't be difficult, as it would only require simple shielding.

[QUOTE=WoaHorde]I'm bloody aware that Ceres has been classified as a dwarf planet. I used it as an example that objects in the asteroid belt contain more fresh water from Earth. As you are apparently unable to use Google and other tools: Ceres Has More Fresh Water[/QUOTE] So you modified your argument to Ceres. That's fine. It just shows how much less you understand what I'm saying here. [QUOTE=WoaHorde]I suggested using gravity assists for most of a journey instead of doing a steady burn. Current rocket tech can only be used effectively this way. You would use minute amounts of fuel for orbit corrections, braking, and emergencies. Forcing an object out of the Kuiper into a calculated orbit could then cause it to be transferred and break using gravity assists from the planets. Getting it down to Earth or other object wouldn't be difficult, as it would only require simple shielding.[/QUOTE] Really, for Ceres? To get an idea of how much fuel you need to alter the orbit of a planet, take a rocket and fire it downwards at the Earth. It does nothing next to the vast amount of mass in Earth, even scaling down, you won't be able to do anything. You are ignorant of how much force 2.63 x 10^20 is. It's very, very much. It will be more if you want to move Ceres. Please, your entire concept is ridiculous. Even if you only used several million tons of fuel (and you will need much, much more), getting it off the Earth and to the other side of the solar system, stopping it, propelling it and Ceres to Venus... Just to recalculate, Ceres going 5 km/s would take 4.73 * 10^27 Ceres is 273943323 kilometers from Venus on average. Even with that 4.73 E27 force, it would take two years to reach Venus. Also, doing that orbit thing wouldn't really help much. You still need to move it, and the net force should remain the same. As for gravitational swings... no. There's no massive sun like object in the kupier belt, sorry. And please, what the heck is "simple shielding?" You might as well go tell someone that we could let down the Moon onto Earth without completely destroying the human race. Try it. Oh wait, that's what you've been doing.

Quote from WoaHorde

I'm bloody aware that Ceres has been classified as a dwarf planet. I used it as an example that objects in the asteroid belt contain more fresh water from Earth. As you are apparently unable to use Google and other tools: Ceres Has More Fresh Water

So you modified your argument to Ceres. That's fine. It just shows how much less you understand what I'm saying here.

Quote from WoaHorde

I suggested using gravity assists for most of a journey instead of doing a steady burn. Current rocket tech can only be used effectively this way. You would use minute amounts of fuel for orbit corrections, braking, and emergencies. Forcing an object out of the Kuiper into a calculated orbit could then cause it to be transferred and break using gravity assists from the planets. Getting it down to Earth or other object wouldn't be difficult, as it would only require simple shielding.

Really, for Ceres? To get an idea of how much fuel you need to alter the orbit of a planet, take a rocket and fire it downwards at the Earth. It does nothing next to the vast amount of mass in Earth, even scaling down, you won't be able to do anything. You are ignorant of how much force 2.63 x 10^20 is. It's very, very much. It will be more if you want to move Ceres.
Please, your entire concept is ridiculous. Even if you only used several million tons of fuel (and you will need much, much more), getting it off the Earth and to the other side of the solar system, stopping it, propelling it and Ceres to Venus...
Just to recalculate, Ceres going 5 km/s would take 4.73 * 10^27
Ceres is 273943323 kilometers from Venus on average. Even with that 4.73 E27 force, it would take two years to reach Venus.

Also, doing that orbit thing wouldn't really help much. You still need to move it, and the net force should remain the same. As for gravitational swings... no. There's no massive sun like object in the kupier belt, sorry.

And please, what the heck is "simple shielding?" You might as well go tell someone that we could let down the Moon onto Earth without completely destroying the human race. Try it. Oh wait, that's what you've been doing.

[quote=frazz][QUOTE=WoaHorde]I'm bloody aware that Ceres has been classified as a dwarf planet. I used it as an example that objects in the asteroid belt contain more fresh water from Earth. As you are apparently unable to use Google and other tools: Ceres Has More Fresh Water[/QUOTE] So you modified your argument to Ceres. That's fine. It just shows how much less you understand what I'm saying here. [QUOTE=WoaHorde]I suggested using gravity assists for most of a journey instead of doing a steady burn. Current rocket tech can only be used effectively this way. You would use minute amounts of fuel for orbit corrections, braking, and emergencies. Forcing an object out of the Kuiper into a calculated orbit could then cause it to be transferred and break using gravity assists from the planets. Getting it down to Earth or other object wouldn't be difficult, as it would only require simple shielding.[/QUOTE] Really, for Ceres? To get an idea of how much fuel you need to alter the orbit of a planet, take a rocket and fire it downwards at the Earth. It does nothing next to the vast amount of mass in Earth, even scaling down, you won't be able to do anything. You are ignorant of how much force 2.63 x 10^20 is. It's very, very much. It will be more if you want to move Ceres. Please, your entire concept is ridiculous. Even if you only used several million tons of fuel (and you will need much, much more), getting it off the Earth and to the other side of the solar system, stopping it, propelling it and Ceres to Venus... Just to recalculate, Ceres going 5 km/s would take 4.73 * 10^27 Ceres is 273943323 kilometers from Venus on average. Even with that 4.73 E27 force, it would take two years to reach Venus. Also, doing that orbit thing wouldn't really help much. You still need to move it, and the net force should remain the same. As for gravitational swings... no. There's no massive sun like object in the kupier belt, sorry. And please, what the heck is "simple shielding?" You might as well go tell someone that we could let down the Moon onto Earth without completely destroying the human race. Try it. Oh wait, that's what you've been doing.[/quote] Your math and physics are nonsense, but the point is sound. The only way to change earth's orbit is to accelerate something out of the atmosphere at escape velocity. Firing a rocket at the ground would indeed to nothing, because the exhaust gas would never leave the atmosphere, much less attain escape velocity. Also, ceres is not in the kupier belt, it is in the asteroid belt between Jupiter and Mars. The most effective way of changing it's velocity would not be to attach a rocket to it, but rather to fire a large rocket [I]at[/I] it, opposite it's orbit, to provide enough instantaneous impulse to get it into a Hohmann transfer orbit, the magnitude of which I am far too lazy to calculate. If you feel like doing the calculation, the equations are here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hohmann_transfer_orbit, the relevant relevant equation is delta-V at apoapsis. Gravitational slingshots would not work, they work by flying your object between a moon and a planet, and accelerating your object by moving the moon into a closer orbit to the planet, the moons of mars are not even close to massive enough to be of use. Achievable or not, it would be far more expensive than running some desalination plants.

Quote from frazz

Quote from WoaHorde

I'm bloody aware that Ceres has been classified as a dwarf planet. I used it as an example that objects in the asteroid belt contain more fresh water from Earth. As you are apparently unable to use Google and other tools: Ceres Has More Fresh Water

So you modified your argument to Ceres. That's fine. It just shows how much less you understand what I'm saying here.

Quote from WoaHorde

I suggested using gravity assists for most of a journey instead of doing a steady burn. Current rocket tech can only be used effectively this way. You would use minute amounts of fuel for orbit corrections, braking, and emergencies. Forcing an object out of the Kuiper into a calculated orbit could then cause it to be transferred and break using gravity assists from the planets. Getting it down to Earth or other object wouldn't be difficult, as it would only require simple shielding.

Really, for Ceres? To get an idea of how much fuel you need to alter the orbit of a planet, take a rocket and fire it downwards at the Earth. It does nothing next to the vast amount of mass in Earth, even scaling down, you won't be able to do anything. You are ignorant of how much force 2.63 x 10^20 is. It's very, very much. It will be more if you want to move Ceres.
Please, your entire concept is ridiculous. Even if you only used several million tons of fuel (and you will need much, much more), getting it off the Earth and to the other side of the solar system, stopping it, propelling it and Ceres to Venus...
Just to recalculate, Ceres going 5 km/s would take 4.73 * 10^27
Ceres is 273943323 kilometers from Venus on average. Even with that 4.73 E27 force, it would take two years to reach Venus.

Also, doing that orbit thing wouldn't really help much. You still need to move it, and the net force should remain the same. As for gravitational swings... no. There's no massive sun like object in the kupier belt, sorry.

And please, what the heck is "simple shielding?" You might as well go tell someone that we could let down the Moon onto Earth without completely destroying the human race. Try it. Oh wait, that's what you've been doing.

Your math and physics are nonsense, but the point is sound. The only way to change earth's orbit is to accelerate something out of the atmosphere at escape velocity. Firing a rocket at the ground would indeed to nothing, because the exhaust gas would never leave the atmosphere, much less attain escape velocity.

Also, ceres is not in the kupier belt, it is in the asteroid belt between Jupiter and Mars. The most effective way of changing it's velocity would not be to attach a rocket to it, but rather to fire a large rocket at it, opposite it's orbit, to provide enough instantaneous impulse to get it into a Hohmann transfer orbit, the magnitude of which I am far too lazy to calculate. If you feel like doing the calculation, the equations are here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hohmann_transfer_orbit, the relevant relevant equation is delta-V at apoapsis.

Gravitational slingshots would not work, they work by flying your object between a moon and a planet, and accelerating your object by moving the moon into a closer orbit to the planet, the moons of mars are not even close to massive enough to be of use.

Achievable or not, it would be far more expensive than running some desalination plants.

I lack physics skills, but I know how ridiculous the idea is. ahem. So, it's settled then? No inter planetary travel?

I lack physics skills, but I know how ridiculous the idea is.

ahem.
So, it's settled then? No inter planetary travel?

As a practical thing with current technology, not happening. However, eventually we [i]will[/i] be wanting to expand. I doubt that we, as a civilization, could spend thousands of years with the capability of space travel and never EVER exploit it.

As a practical thing with current technology, not happening.

However, eventually we will be wanting to expand. I doubt that we, as a civilization, could spend thousands of years with the capability of space travel and never EVER exploit it.

[quote=frazz]I lack physics skills, but I know how ridiculous the idea is. ahem. So, it's settled then? No inter planetary travel?[/quote] Not if you are doing it to get fresh water from ceres.

Quote from frazz

I lack physics skills, but I know how ridiculous the idea is.

ahem.
So, it's settled then? No inter planetary travel?

Not if you are doing it to get fresh water from ceres.

I really don't see us being able to expand across the solar system. As it was said before the costs would be too great. Plus it would require a lot of trial and error which would cost lots of money, resources and possibly even human life. I don't see us expanding on another planet for at least another 1,000 years, if ever. One solution could be giant space stations where people could live, like a giant apartment complex is space. That would probably be less costly and more realistic, but it would still cost a lot.

I really don't see us being able to expand across the solar system. As it was said before the costs would be too great. Plus it would require a lot of trial and error which would cost lots of money, resources and possibly even human life. I don't see us expanding on another planet for at least another 1,000 years, if ever. One solution could be giant space stations where people could live, like a giant apartment complex is space. That would probably be less costly and more realistic, but it would still cost a lot.

Since we cannot even pass our own natural satalite with space-ships, its kind of pointless to debate space travel, cause more then likely, its hundreds of years into the future.

Since we cannot even pass our own natural satalite with space-ships, its kind of pointless to debate space travel, cause more then likely, its hundreds of years into the future.

Here's my input on the "in a millenia or two" idea. America won't last forever, no empire does. Things will come and go. Perhaps someone else will go to the moon some day, but saying that peace and prosperity will increase constantly for years to the point where we will have nothing better to do than waste money on inter-planetary travel is a little assumptous. IMO, space travel is a dream. A very cool one, but not a reality.

Here's my input on the "in a millenia or two" idea.

America won't last forever, no empire does. Things will come and go. Perhaps someone else will go to the moon some day, but saying that peace and prosperity will increase constantly for years to the point where we will have nothing better to do than waste money on inter-planetary travel is a little assumptous.
IMO, space travel is a dream. A very cool one, but not a reality.

Interplanetary space travel will probably not follow the technological singularity by more than a decade, and most predict the technological singularity within 50-100 years. The fact is we already know enough about space travel to go to mars, and if the soviet union still existed, we would be building a ship to do just that.

Interplanetary space travel will probably not follow the technological singularity by more than a decade, and most predict the technological singularity within 50-100 years. The fact is we already know enough about space travel to go to mars, and if the soviet union still existed, we would be building a ship to do just that.

We had the technology to get to Mars in 1982. The problem is, doubters in space expansion, like frazz, and the space shuttle program put an end to the concept. Expansion into space will be needed within a century, if not less, if Humanity wishes to survive.

We had the technology to get to Mars in 1982. The problem is, doubters in space expansion, like frazz, and the space shuttle program put an end to the concept. Expansion into space will be needed within a century, if not less, if Humanity wishes to survive.

WoaHorde: You always say that like a fact [QUOTE]Expansion into space will be needed within a century, if not less, if Humanity wishes to survive.[/QUOTE] But you never give any reasoning as to why. Why don't you explain?

WoaHorde: You always say that like a fact

Quote

Expansion into space will be needed within a century, if not less, if Humanity wishes to survive.

But you never give any reasoning as to why. Why don't you explain?

Because, humanity is evidently destabilizing its self and the environment. I recommend you look into it.

Because, humanity is evidently destabilizing its self and the environment. I recommend you look into it.

That's really lousy reasoning. If you don't care to explain, I'll assume you can't. If you can, make a clear and concise statement, specific, not vague.

That's really lousy reasoning. If you don't care to explain, I'll assume you can't. If you can, make a clear and concise statement, specific, not vague.

People, being animals, require some form of energy that is found in nature. Energy that comes from other animals and plants, since we can't photosynthesize. (yet.) Now when we overfish/produce gas/destroy forests/nuke people, it has negative effects on the environment in which all our food lives. As of now we have not found a replacement for the ecosystem. [QUOTE=DTBK]Einsteinian physics has yet to really be disproved.[/QUOTE] oh noez quantum mechanics..?

People, being animals, require some form of energy that is found in nature. Energy that comes from other animals and plants, since we can't photosynthesize. (yet.) Now when we overfish/produce gas/destroy forests/nuke people, it has negative effects on the environment in which all our food lives. As of now we have not found a replacement for the ecosystem.

Quote from DTBK

Einsteinian physics has yet to really be disproved.

oh noez quantum mechanics..?

First off, the planet is already overpopulated. Estimates say we have been since 1970 or something. The planet will have a very hard time sustaining this population. It will crumble back down a few billion within the next one or two hundred years. Mass space travel will not be feasibly possible in the next century. Do you know how hard it is to get one person into space? Besides, once you can get people out there, how do you expect things to be done? Do you know how small space stations are? We can't just put people out on some other planet in a dome. It won't work. Besides, do you know how damaging conditions are off of earth on people? The gravity isn't as strong and people develop massive problems. After the next century, I have adequate reason to believe we will be no further on our push to move out to space. Society is crumbling in a very disturbing way.

First off, the planet is already overpopulated. Estimates say we have been since 1970 or something. The planet will have a very hard time sustaining this population. It will crumble back down a few billion within the next one or two hundred years.

Mass space travel will not be feasibly possible in the next century. Do you know how hard it is to get one person into space? Besides, once you can get people out there, how do you expect things to be done? Do you know how small space stations are? We can't just put people out on some other planet in a dome. It won't work.
Besides, do you know how damaging conditions are off of earth on people? The gravity isn't as strong and people develop massive problems.

After the next century, I have adequate reason to believe we will be no further on our push to move out to space. Society is crumbling in a very disturbing way.