When we will be able to travel between stars

[Owerlord 0]

What do you think? Are we going to see human race traveling between the stars, or maybe our children will.Or maybe we'll never be able to do it.I think if we boost the space industry, we might be able to do it in about 50 years.But we must get rid of the silly rockets, they are not suitable for space travelling. They cost too much, and give too little. And the solar sailing seems to be slower then we would need. Those solar sails should be really enourmous. So what's left?

[master_q 0]

Well it seems less and less likely that in 2063 or around that time we will have a ‘warp drive’ (2063 is when Zefram Cochrane invented warp drive in the Star Trek Universe). But then again you never really know.

 

It is 100% true that what we have right now is not good enough. We really need to start up something new. Right now I’m in favor of nuclear. We might in the future get something better and something a bit safer, but once you cast all of that in your head (that ‘its not safe’) you can then move on to bigger possibilities of what nuclear power offers. Of course we still have a long way to go - even for this, but once you make it a bit safer and integrate with the space program it will be a large advancement for future space travel programs.

 

In fact NASA has a project that seems like it is going to get funding from the government and Bush seems to want to send funding into this project that is researching on the possibilities of using nuclear power. .It is called Project Prometheus

 

One problem that we have to overcome (including that fear of nuclear power) is how we can get fission reactors to work in a spacecraft. As you probably know the Navy has nuclear power submarines and aircraft-carriers. Scientists really have had lots and lots of success and the Navy is the best example of this. Just imagine if we were to use this same success and apply it to space. That would be neat!

 

 

Master Q

StarTrek_Master_Q@yahoo.com

[Xeroc 0]

If I remember correctly, there have been numerous satellites powed by fission reactors!

 

Also, nucler power is great, but it will still take a looonnng time to get to other stars at slower-than-light speeds. I think for inter-stellar travel we really need FTL (faster-than-light) travel. Whether we use wormholes, warp drive, space folders, spatial transducer, or something else, we need FTL.

[master_q 0]

If I remember correctly, there have been numerous satellites powed by fission reactors!

 

Also, nucler power is great, but it will still take a looonnng time to get to other stars at slower-than-light speeds.  I think for inter-stellar travel we really need FTL (faster-than-light) travel.  Whether we use wormholes, warp drive, space folders, spatial transducer, or something else, we need FTL.

We do need "FTL", but let’s take one step at a time.

 

And to reach the objective of “FTL” I think the first step we have to take is nuclear

 

 

Master Q

StarTrek_Master_Q@yahoo.com

[Owerlord 0]

As you probably know the Navy has nuclear power submarines and aircraft-carriers.

yes, I actually visited one. Aircraft Carrier Dwidght D Eisenhower.Too bad it wasn't the Enterprise

I've beem thinking alot about nuclear power recently.I think the fussion would do great.They are much safer then fission.Are there any fussion reactors today? I know I read about some being tested experimentally, but I can't really remember.How much energy is possible to gain from a fussion proces?

Also, nucler power is great, but it will still take a looonnng time to get to other stars at slower-than-light speeds. I think for inter-stellar travel we really need FTL (faster-than-light) travel. Whether we use wormholes, warp drive, space folders, spatial transducer, or something else, we need FTL.

I agree we need FTL travel.But Einstein said it's not posssible didn't he? It would take a really enourmous amount of energy to move anything(except it's without mass) close to speed of light.And there's also problem about time and forces during acceleration( we would need artificial gravity).....the list is almost endless

[master_q 0]

As you probably know the Navy has nuclear power submarines and aircraft-carriers.

yes, I actually visited one. Aircraft Carrier Dwidght D Eisenhower.Too bad it wasn't the Enterprise

I've beem thinking alot about nuclear power recently.I think the fussion would do great.They are much safer then fission.Are there any fussion reactors today? I know I read about some being tested experimentally, but I can't really remember.How much energy is possible to gain from a fussion proces?

Also, nucler power is great, but it will still take a looonnng time to get to other stars at slower-than-light speeds. I think for inter-stellar travel we really need FTL (faster-than-light) travel. Whether we use wormholes, warp drive, space folders, spatial transducer, or something else, we need FTL.

I agree we need FTL travel.But Einstein said it's not posssible didn't he? It would take a really enourmous amount of energy to move anything(except it's without mass) close to speed of light.And there's also problem about time and forces during acceleration( we would need artificial gravity).....the list is almost endless

Well for “FTL”. It is true that you can’t go faster then the speed of light. No normal mass can under normal means. But there are theoretical ways of getting around the issue. For example in ST they don’t technically go faster then light. They use subspace! And subspace is from the idea of General Relativity. Special Relativity says you can’t go faster then light, but using the idea of subspace (or even wormholes or anything to that nature) would be using the properties of general relativity to get around that of special relativity. Subspace in short is compressed space-time and that really “pushes” you off into where no man has gone before. So there are ways around the limit. The limit is valid and is correct. (Of course there are other issues including quantum tunneling where we can send a single faster then light, but that’s another story.

 

 

If we could get controlled fusion then that would give us a ton of power. When we get energy released by any kind of nuclear reaction where the energy (mass deficit) of the products are more than that of the original nuclei then we can get lots of energy and then we can put that energy to use. The thing that is special about nuclear fusion is that besides having large nucleuses splitting into some kind of medium sized one . . . where nuclear fusion takes small nuclei and combines them to make medium sized ones! And then there we have it nuclear fusion! (Medium-sized nuclei have the biggest mass defect per particle giving a ton of energy)

 

The best example of how much energy you can get out of nuclear fusion is the hydrogen bomb. Basically (and in brief) a hydrogen bomb creates a thermonuclear reaction. The bomb makes its uranium (I think its uranium 235 or 354? I don’t remember) and then undergoes fusion. And then we have a very large flux of fast neutrons.

 

6 Li + 1 n --> 4 He + 3 H

3 0 2 1

 

Because the nuclei of the tritium (hydgoren-3) combined in a thermonuclear reaction with deutrieum nuclei

 

3 H + 2 H --> 4 He + 1 n

1 1 2 0

 

The neutrons then ‘strike’ the uranium’s shell which holds the bomb together. The fusion of the uranium creates lots and lots of energy and then . . . . . .. “BOOM”.

 

When doing the math a hydrogen bomb can give off 25 megatons of energy! That’s 1,000 times more energy then an atom bomb in WWII. Of course when you think of it, it’s really scary.

 

But that again brings me back to some kind of nuclear power using fusion of this enormity bringing a big break though. We would not have an energy crisis! It would be gone. Just imagine because deuterium would give us a never ending supply and could also give us no to very little population it would be a break thorough.

 

EDIT: Sorry the formulas did not come out right. I’ll have to find a graphic on the Internet to post.

 

 

Master Q

StarTrek_Master_Q@yahoo.com

Edited May 4, 2003 by master_q

[master_q 0]

Ok I found one . . . . .

 

(It basically sums up what I said and does not go into the neutron reaction with the lithium nuclei or the thermonuclear reaction with the deuterium nuclei. However, like I said it basically sums it all up in the overall result)

 

 

Figures even this does not come out good (LOL)

 

Well at least if I type this one out it should show (I hope)

 

⁶Li² H --> ⁸He --> 2⁴He+ energy

 

 

Master Q

StarTrek_Master_Q@yahoo.com

Edited May 4, 2003 by master_q

[Captain Jean-Luc Picard 1]

Why can't we build a fussion powered vessel in space, then adopt the Russian idea of space-pods for going up and down?

[Falcon Redwing 0]

I think that we are not quite that far. The problem with current space program is that in order to escape gravity we have to use a huge wasteful rocket to achieve an escape velocity. The first thing we need is a more efficient way to escape our gravity.

 

I don't even know how they escape a planets gravity in Star Trek...

[Owerlord 0]

Here's another example of fusion energy.This one is perfectly ecological.

1/1H + 11/5B->3 4/2He + energy.

It's extremely clean and safe, because there are no radioactive atom cores in this process no free neutrons which can induce radioactivity if they hit atom cores.

But, it takes very high temperature to begin this proces.I mean VERY HIGH

There's also a process called COLD FUSSION which can solve the problem of high temperatures in fussion process' by using some catalysators which can reduce distance between atom cores.Some elementary particles have the possibility of being a catalysator in such reaction(like mions).

I don't even know how they escape a planets gravity in Star Trek...

They are probably using anti gravity devices or those "space elevators", or just beam things to ship

[Jeanway 0]

I sincerely believe by the time we are travelling between the stars, our civilization today will look to them as ancient Egypt looks to us today. Perhaps 2000 years from now, and that's being conservative. We have a long way to go, sadly

[nik 0]

I'm a pessimist when it comes to human interstellar travel. I believe we will destroy or exhaust the resources on our planet necessary to develop the means for interstellar travel. Development of new technologies, fuels, and resources depends on existing technologies, fuels, and resources. I think we're going to run out of the old stuff before we can make the new stuff. Of course, I could very well be wrong but humans seem extremely dependent on

fossil fuels and these seem to be getting more and more precious.

 

This theory pretty much confines humanity to the inner planets. We will (maybe fortunately for the universe) probably stay here until we destroy ourselves.

[headborg 1]

I'm a pessimist when it comes to human interstellar travel.  I believe we will destroy or exhaust the resources on our planet necessary to develop the means for interstellar travel.  Development of new technologies, fuels, and resources depends on existing technologies, fuels, and resources.  I think we're going to run out of the old stuff before we can make the new stuff.  Of course, I could very well be wrong but humans seem extremely dependent on

fossil fuels and these seem to be getting more and more precious. 

 

This theory pretty much confines humanity to the inner planets.  We will (maybe fortunately for the universe) probably stay here until we destroy ourselves.

255821[/snapback]

I'm sorry I have to agree with Nik on his point, it's sad that we've been kept dependant on fossil fuels and the internal combustion engine for over a century...and the Auto makers and Oil companies want to keep it that way!