When will we reach the Moon, Mars, Jupiter, another star and another galaxy...

[Spektor]

Magick wouldn't even need to leave his front room, he would just use astral projection. Why bother wasting all that time and effort on technological advance when you can just pretend you're doing it?

 

[Fusion]

People always tend to over estimate the speed of development of technology

On the contrary, I believe most people under estimate it. We've envisioned many new propulsion methods over the past half century which would have been inconceivable before the Cold War, such as the fusion-powered rocket I mentioned and many others. They are mostly still on paper but the physics is there, only the engineering and finance is required.

NeilFawcett, mavity does act at the speed of light, so yes, we'd still orbit the non-existent sun for around eight minutes afterwards in the same way that we would continue to see it for the same time.

 

[sid]

I dont think we will ever reach another galaxy. Our galaxy is 100000 light years wide which is 600000 trillion miles!! Our next major galaxy is Andromeda which is 2 million light years away.

Just think about how fast light travels, 186000 miles a SECOND!! and it takes 2 million years to get to the next major galaxy. It just wont be possible with the human lifespan and frailty we have.

Its really hard to grasp the vastness of space and how rediculously insignificant we really are.

As has been mentioned many times now in this thread.

It doesn't take light anytime to go anywhere.
Secondly, you can go anywhere in the universe in your time as long as you travel fast enough.

sid

 

[L0rdMike]

- A human lands on the Moon again
Only one on the list viable really.

- A human lands on Mars
Never.

- A human reaches Jupiter (Arthur C Clarke said we'd already be there )
Never.

- A probe or human reaches another star
The heat would kill you, Never.

- A probe or human reaches another galaxy
Too far, Never.

 

[Energize]

I think we're both on the same page, it's just your comment about not needing as much food supply if you're travelling close to the speed of light threw me off, because it implies they are aware of it.

They need less food because they will only experience a few days or whatever the time dilation factor is, that's what I meant.

 

[ScarySquirrel]

- A human lands on the Moon again
Only one on the list viable really.

- A human lands on Mars
Never.

- A human reaches Jupiter (Arthur C Clarke said we'd already be there )
Never.

- A probe or human reaches another star
The heat would kill you, Never.

- A probe or human reaches another galaxy
Too far, Never.

Nothing like a bit of optimism.

 

[Inquisitor]

Nothing like a bit of optimism.

Charlie Stross puts it quite well:

http://www.antipope.org/charlie/blog-static/2007/06/the_high_frontier_redux.html

 

[Chojin]

Once we become augmented humans (in 2012) we will be teleporting to these places on a regular basis, commuting across the multiverse.

 

[Inquisitor]

Edit: ignore

 

[Nanoman]

If you could somehow stabilise atoms without thier neutrons. Wouldnt the isotopes effectivily be of much less mass? This would mean you could travel at a much closer speed to light. lol.

 

[sid]

If you could somehow stabilise atoms without thier neutrons. Wouldnt the isotopes effectivily be of much less mass? This would mean you could travel at a much closer speed to light. lol.

lol

 

[Energize]

If you could somehow stabilise atoms without thier neutrons. Wouldnt the isotopes effectivily be of much less mass? This would mean you could travel at a much closer speed to light. lol.

Even if that was possible, different isotopes have different chemical properties, water containing hydrogen with no neutrons for example is fine, whereas water containing hydrogen with 1 neutron (heavy water) will kill you.

 

[Angilion]

If jupiter is 2.5G, then what is the problem with landing on it? Humans are capable of a mere 2.5G easily.

It's gaseous, so you can't really land on it. Orbit it, yes. Land on it, no.

 

[Angilion]

Closest star is about 4 light years away!!

But as far as we know, there's damn all there. In more familiar terms, it's
about 24,000,000,000,000 miles away. We're not going to go there unless it's not just possible but easy to do, or there is some other reason for doing it. Right now, it isn't even close to possible, let alone easy.

 

[Angilion]

That makes me sad hearing stuff like this, how will we ever be able to traverse the stars when are neighbouring galaxies are so far away?, there must be some way surely

If someone invents a means of propulsion that can accelerate a ship for years at around 1g without requiring so much fuel that the mass of the fuel makes it impossible anyway.

Which doesn't look like happening any time soon.

Of course, there might be some sort of short cut, as used in sci-fi. Warp drives, wormholes, whatever. Maybe.

 

[Angilion]

Well quite simple really, IF we did land on the moon then what was left behind (moon buggy and equipment) would be visible through a DECENT telescope, especially as we have telescopes that can see other unviverses. Also what about the radiation belt? This part I'm not too sure about. They say that we couldn't pass through it. Another thing is why haven't we been there since? Technology has increased tenfold since 1969 so that is my theory.

i) The stuff is far too small and dull. Yes, we have telescopes that can see other galaxies (not other universes!), but only stuff there that is vast and gives of stupendous amounts of energy. You can see the Andromeda galaxy with your naked eye, right through the many miles of atmosphere of Earth. That's about 2.5 million light-years away. That's about 15,063,989,375,000,000,000 miles away. So why can't you see individual rocks on the surface of the moon, which is only about 250,000 miles away, with your naked eye?

ii) The radiation belt is not uniform. It's not a problem if you speed through a weaker area inside a ship. You wouldn't want to hang around in it, but of course they didn't.

iii) Why go there? It's difficult, which means it's very expensive. Politicians need a reason to throw public money at it. Where is the reason? The USA only spent the money the first few times in order to one-up the USSR.

There is no good evidence that the moon landings were faked and a great deal of good evidence that they weren't. It's odd how persistent the belief they were faked is.

 

[manic111]

We just need to wait for the Holly Hop Drive

 

[Inquisitor]

Even if that was possible, different isotopes have different chemical properties, water containing hydrogen with no neutrons for example is fine, whereas water containing hydrogen with 1 neutron (heavy water) will kill you.

Only after drinking it exclusively for about a week or two though

Besides, differences in the chemical behaviour of unstable isotopes of heavier elements are negligible. Not that it's possible to render them stable, of course.

 

[digipeep]

Go on, put your scifi heads on and predict how many years till:-
- A human lands on the Moon again

25 years

- A human lands on Mars

Never, too far away

- A human reaches Jupiter (Arthur C Clarke said we'd already be there )

Never, too far away

- A probe or human reaches another star

A probe can reach our sun in about six weeks.

Humans will never reach the sun as it it too far away.

- A probe or human reaches another galaxy

A probe will reach the net galaxy in about 10 billion years time.

Humans will never reach another galaxy as it it too far away.

 

[Souness]

They need less food because they will only experience a few days or whatever the time dilation factor is, that's what I meant.

Trust me this is wrong. I did a course on relativity at uni (and got 86%, yeah I'm the man). The journey will appear shorter for observers on earth, but for the people in the spaceship it will take exactly the same amount of time. What you are suggesting is basically amounts to travelling faster than the speed of light (speed = distance/time, so 25000 light years / a few days would be greater than c, i.e. impossible).