PDA

View Full Version : 2012: How to build a starship? Openstarship 2012 project?



frenchn00b
December 5th, 2009, 10:58 PM
Hello

http://www.whowillsurvive2012.com/
How to build a starship to escape for better? ;)

frenchn00b
December 5th, 2009, 10:59 PM
I found the plans for this one >

http://www.mechquest.com/images/homepage/mecha-starship.jpg

soni1770
December 5th, 2009, 11:04 PM
lets use a
Alcubierre drive


:popcorn:

or to get over some
Causality violations


lets use a
Krasnikov tube

Psumi
December 5th, 2009, 11:06 PM
I found the plans for this one >

http://www.mechquest.com/images/homepage/mecha-starship.jpg

Those browser based games suck in my opinion. I would expect people to bash you for using a game that relies on closed source software, especially when you say OpenStarShip.

the8thstar
December 5th, 2009, 11:07 PM
Ha, I don't need a spacecraft. I'm from K-Pax.

matthekc
December 5th, 2009, 11:14 PM
A starship is a bit ambitious at our current technology level... a moon base may be a more realistic goal

This company may be able to help you achieve your goals. They are attemting to build a space motel
have made some progress toward that goal too.

http://www.bigelowaerospace.com/genesis_I/

lisati
December 5th, 2009, 11:15 PM
Hello

http://www.whowillsurvive2012.com/
How to build a starship to escape for better? ;)

The answer to a question: Yes, there are how-tos there. :)

ticopelp
December 5th, 2009, 11:33 PM
I wonder if Richard Stallman would choose to escape a doomed Earth on a starship that ran proprietary software.

frenchn00b
December 6th, 2009, 06:15 AM
your link :
http://www.bigelowaerospace.com/careers/
is indeed cool.

But you know an openstarship. I am sure that it wouuldnt be difficult. We are highly qualified people nowadays, we have linux, opensource, and master all technologies

h2 and o2 / h2o is known to give enough power for going up to space.
then solar if possible to get energy

but guys, ufo, with what do they travel, whcih energy?

Exodist
December 6th, 2009, 08:06 AM
A spaceship isn't hard to create/build, its getting the money for the materials that a pain.

EDIT: Wanted to add more info..


We DO have the tech to build spacecraft, yes money is hard to get the material. But submarines are not much different. Propulsion is advancing.
The problem is that everyone keeps thinking spaceflight for all is a "future" thing, its not. Its in out grasp now, we just need to focus on getting off this rock instead of focusing on un winnable wars.

pelle.k
December 6th, 2009, 10:02 AM
but guys, ufo, with what do they travel, whcih energy?
They could of course be using fusion, but more realistically some to us unknown energy source, such as zero-point energy or something (take your pick). I don't think the question of where they get their energy from is as important as *how* they travel. Maybe heaps of energy is not required when bending space-time (or moving through dimensions). This is all speculative, of course, but brute force is probably not the best way (read, rocket motors etc).
We just need to get a better understanding of quantum mechanics - then maybe we can consider trying out interstellar travel IMHO.

Then, of course, some say we (ehrm, secret organizations) already have craft capable of interstellar travel already. Who knows? :)

Exodist
December 6th, 2009, 11:20 AM
but guys, ufo, with what do they travel, whcih energy?

Nuclear Fission reactors we currently use today are effective and fairly safe compared to older designs. At least the US Navys is. But they are bulky in design and IMHO not really fit for space usage (due to coolant and ventilation requirements).

My bet would be on a effective cold fusion core. Although to the best of my knowledge scientist are still having troubles getting this to work correctly or even work at all at times.


In addition, traveling posses an issue. I for one dont believe Einstein's "theory" on traveling at the speed of light will make you travel through time per se. But I also know without a doubt, you hit something in space traveling at half speed of light no matter how small you could easily split the items atoms and set off a nuclear explosion. So traveling at Warp Speed Scotty would be suicide regardless of time travel issues.

With the nearest solar system still being over 16 light years (~5 parsecs). Light speed would still prove way to slow. We are going to have to pull some pages from SciFi books and actually try to make functional worm hole technology.. Yea I said it.. Its as plausible as warp speed at the moment and probably easier to achieve with the proper electromagnetic fields put in place. Not to mention potentially much safer travel since space is full of garbage..

Exodist
December 6th, 2009, 11:26 AM
They could of course be using fusion, but more realistically some to us unknown energy source, such as zero-point energy or something (take your pick). I don't think the question of where they get their energy from is as important as *how* they travel. Maybe heaps of energy is not required when bending space-time (or moving through dimensions). This is all speculative, of course, but brute force is probably not the best way (read, rocket motors etc).
We just need to get a better understanding of quantum mechanics - then maybe we can consider trying out interstellar travel IMHO.

Then, of course, some say we (ehrm, secret organizations) already have craft capable of interstellar travel already. Who knows? :)

Zero Point Energy is possible if they can figure out how the harmonics of the whole mess works. But who knows, everytime I try to look up info about this its all dated around Einsteins time. Do we have any more real scientist these days or has everyone gave up?

soni1770
December 6th, 2009, 11:58 AM
anyone heard of

Google mum


it's where we send of frozen eggs and sperm aboard a space craft to another star.

this way we don't have to worry about the crew getting old and dieing.

when the ship arrives it starts popin out babies and google mum becomes, well, there mum.....

frenchn00b
December 6th, 2009, 12:27 PM
Nuclear Fission reactors we currently use today are effective and fairly safe compared to older designs. At least the US Navys is. But they are bulky in design and IMHO not really fit for space usage (due to coolant and ventilation requirements).

My bet would be on a effective cold fusion core. Although to the best of my knowledge scientist are still having troubles getting this to work correctly or even work at all at times.


In addition, traveling posses an issue. I for one dont believe Einstein's "theory" on traveling at the speed of light will make you travel through time per se. But I also know without a doubt, you hit something in space traveling at half speed of light no matter how small you could easily split the items atoms and set off a nuclear explosion. So traveling at Warp Speed Scotty would be suicide regardless of time travel issues.

With the nearest solar system still being over 16 light years (~5 parsecs). Light speed would still prove way to slow. We are going to have to pull some pages from SciFi books and actually try to make functional worm hole technology.. Yea I said it.. Its as plausible as warp speed at the moment and probably easier to achieve with the proper electromagnetic fields put in place. Not to mention potentially much safer travel since space is full of garbage..

there is this ultra sun solar nuclear. Where hte heat is ultra high. I would bet indeed that speed of light is too slow. it means that the spaceship shall increase speed smoothly under few G vectors to avoid to kill the person in the ship.

But if you think UFO are made so that they can travel and any speeds.
They can move up down slow fast, and no one inside can be affected of the vehicle 2g corriolis change. they have another way to solve the regular physic calculations that even einstein and successors havent achieve yet.

tele transportation as in stargates? Well atoms per atoms, it is kind of working today, based on electrons. But at the end, one get a big soup ;)

so? solutions:
- think about quantic physics which is today not describing the whole system
- copy UFO. tell me, how they can increase their speed, and do not exhibit this shock wave at the sound speed? he he ;) the reply is easy, one can tune up the quantic physic theories, still today not exploited

frenchn00b
December 6th, 2009, 12:30 PM
A spaceship isn't hard to create/build, its getting the money for the materials that a pain.

ok let's design an open GNU project to make plans. I can help.

xir_
December 6th, 2009, 02:52 PM
Do we have any more real scientist these days or has everyone gave up?

cheers for that, but us scientists have to focus on what we can get funded for. Right now i am researching single molecule magnets for quantum computing. This has a use in the next 20 years.

ZPE, cold fusion, zero friction, all these are a way off. And there are very good reason why they were terminated in serious research countries. But if you want to offer my department a couple of million per year we will take it on for you.

wmcbrine
December 6th, 2009, 03:27 PM
A spaceship isn't hard to create/build, its getting the money for the materials that a pain.Spaceship, yes; starship, no. I don't think we could build a starship in three years. Fortunately, we don't need to, since nothing is going to happen in 2012. (I'm assuming here that the definition of a starship includes reasonable travel time. If you don't mind it taking 50,000 years or so to get to the nearest star, then yeah, I guess we could build a starship today.)


I for one dont believe Einstein's "theory" on traveling at the speed of light will make you travel through time per se.That is not, in fact, Einstein's theory. And once you figure out what Einstein's theory actually is, you'll have to do better than just saying that you don't believe it. It's well-tested, and has survived many attacks, from real scientists as well as crackpots, for whom it's a favorite target.

Currently there is no real reason to believe that we can ever circumvent the light-speed barrier. We must plan accordingly.

matthekc
December 6th, 2009, 07:21 PM
I think a moon base or Mars base is our current most likely safe guard against extinction. The technology is mostly there we could use in-ground construction (for interstellar radiation) wrapped in a Bigalo space material for atmospheric seal. I think that would provide a good external structure. Solar panel technology might provide the safest energy source with multiple banks in a redundant set-up(think of failures over a long mission if Earth is destroyed and repair supplies are unobtainable). A large indoor greenhouse for food and for CO2 O2 regulation. Likely using hydroponics and artificial lighting(direct interstellar radiation from sunlight would likely kill plants unless filtered somehow) If something horrific happened on Earth asteroid, comet, nuclear war occured this research center/tourist destination would be able to repopulate hopefully Earth.

Странник
December 6th, 2009, 07:28 PM
I volunteer!

Kdar
December 6th, 2009, 07:28 PM
All I need is some Ketse (matches) and this thing "Pepelatz":

http://www.jesselawrence.com/blog/images/kindzadza1.jpg

frenchn00b
December 6th, 2009, 09:08 PM
cheers for that, but us scientists have to focus on what we can get funded for. Right now i am researching single molecule magnets for quantum computing. This has a use in the next 20 years.

ZPE, cold fusion, zero friction, all these are a way off. And there are very good reason why they were terminated in serious research countries. But if you want to offer my department a couple of million per year we will take it on for you.

zero friction you will never make it
the only way is to levitate the object with magnetic fields. those shall be highly intense, and this means 0 Kelvin. This therefore means lot of costs and co2 equivalent.

frenchn00b
December 6th, 2009, 09:12 PM
Spaceship, yes; starship, no. I don't think we could build a starship in three years. Fortunately, we don't need to, since nothing is going to happen in 2012. (I'm assuming here that the definition of a starship includes reasonable travel time. If you don't mind it taking 50,000 years or so to get to the nearest star, then yeah, I guess we could build a starship today.)


I think to go on the moon would be enough. One just need electricity that has no limits in time : eternal energy power, like into movie : Twenty_Thousand_Leagues_Under_the_Sea (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twenty_Thousand_Leagues_Under_the_Sea) with nemo's invention.
Once you have sufficient energy, or converted to electricity, you can survive and do synthesis of H2 and O2, h2o, well i am not sure about it, HOW to get all we need on the moon.

eragon100
December 6th, 2009, 09:31 PM
I volunteer for the design project as well! :popcorn:

frenchn00b
December 7th, 2009, 10:25 AM
I volunteer for the design project as well! :popcorn:

whcih platform to volunteer projects? Sourceforge website, icq, irc, forum, ... ? How to design CAO/DAO plans? And most important which novel type of energy reactor, or stil the good old hydrogen based principle for propulsion?

Pasdar
December 7th, 2009, 11:15 AM
Amateur space enthusiasts can not even make a rocket go into the lowest orbit possible, and you are thinking about a starship? In fact, most countries in the world can not even make a rocket go into space.

It might be possible for amateurs to eventually manage to get their rocket in low earth orbit, they might even be able to launch one person there. But a starship? lol... then again, even if you manage to get 10 people up there, they will all die.

To actually survive you'd have to think of a mission to get you to the closest inhabitable planet, which would be planet Mars. However, let me tell you we might die much sooner than 2012... everyday there is a possibility of being hit by a huge astroid and nasa or whoever wouldn't be able to let you know or even do **** about it even if they knew it a year before. This isn't the movies. :)

frenchn00b
December 7th, 2009, 11:28 AM
Amateur space enthusiasts can not even make a rocket go into the lowest orbit possible, and you are thinking about a starship? In fact, most countries in the world can not even make a rocket go into space.

It might be possible for amateurs to eventually manage to get their rocket in low earth orbit, they might even be able to launch one person there. But a starship? lol... then again, even if you manage to get 10 people up there, they will all die.

To actually survive you'd have to think of a mission to get you to the closest inhabitable planet, which would be planet Mars. However, let me tell you we might die much sooner than 2012... everyday there is a possibility of being hit by a huge astroid and nasa or whoever wouldn't be able to let you know or even do **** about it even if they knew it a year before. This isn't the movies. :)

was kind, true, and very funny
:biggrin::biggrin::biggrin:

it is true. but march or evtl. the moon are good alternatives for human lives. Another solar system would be interesting but rather far for our today poor basic technologies.

soni1770
December 7th, 2009, 12:03 PM
well, according to the mayan calender the long count gets to zero in 2012,

so we're not told by which method, if any the global apocalypse will take,

so i think we're really got to rule out the moon, and probably mars to,

since what is at stake is the survival of the human race, lets make this starship, well, reach for the stars,

lets make openmum to raise all our eggs and sperm into freedom loving babies in cira 20,000 years when they get to a planet they can call home, the planet hunters should have found a suitable planet within 100ly by then. we'll just use current tech as we don't have very much time. so fission it's got to be.

we'll need a orbiter and lander, some shelter, mining tools, refineries....

the list goes on, but this is within our reach by 2012, if all of humanity pull together for this one goal,....

in other words, we're doomed,

best spend then next 3 years drinking and maxing out all possible sources of credit.....:popcorn:

wmcbrine
December 7th, 2009, 03:41 PM
To actually survive you'd have to think of a mission to get you to the closest inhabitable planet, which would be planet Mars....for a pretty loose definition of "inhabitable". I mean, it's better than Venus, but still, you'd need a completely artificial environment to live in.

And as long as you're building a completely artificial environment anyway, you may as well forgo the gravity well, and just live (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_habitat) in space. (http://images.google.com/images?q=space+colonies) Planets are overrated. :D

MasterNetra
December 7th, 2009, 04:09 PM
your link :
http://www.bigelowaerospace.com/careers/
is indeed cool.

But you know an openstarship. I am sure that it wouuldnt be difficult. We are highly qualified people nowadays, we have linux, opensource, and master all technologies

h2 and o2 / h2o is known to give enough power for going up to space.
then solar if possible to get energy

but guys, ufo, with what do they travel, whcih energy?

ufo = unidentified flying object, if you mean what do alien craft use for energy then well I would imagine it would depended on the particular vehicle design and the what the actual alien society prefers/knows. But as for the realistic details we would either need to obtain a craft itself or have them tell us what they use. Otherwise we are just speculating.

...for a pretty loose definition of "inhabitable". I mean, it's better than Venus, but still, you'd need a completely artificial environment to live in.

And as long as you're building a completely artificial environment anyway, you may as well forgo the gravity well, and just live (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_habitat) in space. (http://images.google.com/images?q=space+colonies) Planets are overrated. :D

Problem with that is that we would have a problem reproducing. Not the act itself but rather sperm to egg issues. Our bodies are fully adapted to gravity, it would require some genetic engineering to adapted ourselves to a weightless environment.

xir_
December 7th, 2009, 04:13 PM
zero friction you will never make it
the only way is to levitate the object with magnetic fields. those shall be highly intense, and this means 0 Kelvin. This therefore means lot of costs and co2 equivalent.

by zero friction i mean the term used to describe ultra low friction devices. Also co2 cant be used to cool to 0k, nothing can. Also even with magnetic fields work is still being done in order to accelerate the object.

If you are interested in this stuff these an interesting article about using a mass defect caused by superconducting magnets, i.e they may be producing some form of anti gravity, although i haven't rechecked this in a couple years. The best place to look would be new scientist.

wmcbrine
December 7th, 2009, 04:25 PM
Problem with that is that we would have a problem reproducing. Not the act itself but rather sperm to egg issues. Our bodies are fully adapted to gravity, it would require some genetic engineering to adapted ourselves to a weightless environment.MasterNetra, I don't suggest that humans should live in a weightless environment. You might want to click on those links. :)

When I speak of forgoing the gravity well, I'm talking about the thing that makes it so bloody difficult to launch spaceships. But rotational pseudo-gravity can (in principle) keep humans healthy and comfortable, without imposing that penalty.

alexfish
December 7th, 2009, 04:32 PM
Hello

http://www.whowillsurvive2012.com/
How to build a starship to escape for better? ;)

Sorry but Microsoft already got in on the act

claiming intellectual wrights and all that crap about DRM

something about keeping in touch with earth whilst been in space for more than 30 days

if you dont' believe look here

http://office.microsoft.com/en-us/templates/TC300011121033.aspx

sorry to be the bearer Bad News


PS don't leave your finger prints on the drawings cos they will claim intellectual rights to them as well

ZankerH
December 7th, 2009, 05:03 PM
This thread is surprisingly filled with people who think they know more about aerospace engineering than aerospace engineers with several degrees. Face it, if you though of it, chances are NASA/ESA/Roscosmos R&D (or some obscure physicist) thought of it before you, and if they couldn't get the funding from the richest governments on Earth, odds are you can't scrape enough money together either.

Currently, the cheapest way of getting stuff into low earth orbit is the Falcon 1 rocket, which will set you back around 7 million US dollars for a payload capacity of 670 kilos, meaning ~10 000 dollars per kilo to low earth orbit if you take the cheapest option (that has a success rate of 50% thus far). Triple that amount if you want a more reliable and established launch provider such as Delta IV or Ariane, and then multiply it by five to get a figure for geosynchronous orbit. And even that price is still dwarfed by what it'd probably cost you to ship the same payload to moon - that is, once we have a commercial rocket capable of propelling significant payloads into a trans-lunar insertion orbit.

Space just isn't going to become accessible to anyone but government agencies and huge, dedicated corporations/conglomerates (most of which live on government contracts) until we figure out something more efficient than chemical propellants. Space elevator to GSO + solar sail for anywhere further out would be a nice start.

And lol @ op for bringing 2012 paranoia into what would otherwise have been a perfectly sensible thread.

alexfish
December 7th, 2009, 05:31 PM
This thread is surprisingly filled with people who think they know more about aerospace engineering than aerospace engineers with several degrees. Face it, if you though of it, chances are NASA/ESA/Roscosmos R&D (or some obscure physicist) thought of it before you, and if they couldn't get the funding from the richest governments on Earth, odds are you can't scrape enough money together either.

Currently, the cheapest way of getting stuff into low earth orbit is the Falcon 1 rocket, which will set you back around 7 million US dollars for a payload capacity of 670 kilos, meaning ~10 000 dollars per kilo to low earth orbit if you take the cheapest option (that has a success rate of 50% thus far). Triple that amount if you want a more reliable and established launch provider such as Delta IV or Ariane, and then multiply it by five to get a figure for geosynchronous orbit. And even that price is still dwarfed by what it'd probably cost you to ship the same payload to moon - that is, once we have a commercial rocket capable of propelling significant payloads into a trans-lunar insertion orbit.

Space just isn't going to become accessible to anyone but government agencies and huge, dedicated corporations/conglomerates (most of which live on government contracts) until we figure out something more efficient than chemical propellants. Space elevator to GSO + solar sail for anywhere further out would be a nice start.

And lol @ op for bringing 2012 paranoia into what would otherwise have been a perfectly sensible thread.

Got mine from MODELZONE

a bargain at 29.99

http://www.modelzone.co.uk/rockets_and_kites.htm

might even try the rocket with kite to capture the solar wind

Help! They Have sold out of Kites

anyone got a spare Kite

Hyper Tails
December 7th, 2009, 11:11 PM
good luck building one

lethalfang
December 7th, 2009, 11:26 PM
A spaceship isn't hard to create/build, its getting the money for the materials that a pain.

EDIT: Wanted to add more info..


We DO have the tech to build spacecraft, yes money is hard to get the material. But submarines are not much different. Propulsion is advancing.
The problem is that everyone keeps thinking spaceflight for all is a "future" thing, its not. Its in out grasp now, we just need to focus on getting off this rock instead of focusing on un winnable wars.

Sure, we have the technology to build some spaceships that can leave Earth, but with the current technology, it won't go anywhere much farther than the outer reaches of the solar system (beyond that, the passengers would be long dead). So what's the point?

soni1770
December 7th, 2009, 11:33 PM
the passengers would be long dead). So what's the point?


google mum....


the passengers don't have to be alive to start with....

all possible:popcorn:

with todays tech

Exodist
December 7th, 2009, 11:47 PM
This thread is surprisingly filled with people who know more about aerospace engineering than aerospace engineers with several degrees.
FIXED

Thanks for noticing our potential! :D

ZankerH
December 7th, 2009, 11:48 PM
Got mine from MODELZONE

a bargain at 29.99

http://www.modelzone.co.uk/rockets_and_kites.htm

might even try the rocket with kite to capture the solar wind

Help! They Have sold out of Kites

anyone got a spare Kite

I sincerely hope this ws some kind of a joke attempt. You do realise the difference between shooting off a half a kilo of solid propellant in plastic wrap a couple hundred meters up and launching a dozen tons of payload into earth orbit, right?

Also, you'd need over 20 square metres of superlight solar sail to propel anything that heavy with non-negligible acceleration, and that's if you'd started out in space to begin with.

ZankerH
December 7th, 2009, 11:54 PM
Sure, we have the technology to build some spaceships that can leave Earth, but with the current technology, it won't go anywhere much farther than the outer reaches of the solar system (beyond that, the passengers would be long dead). So what's the point?

Wrong. We do have the spacecraft guidance and propulsion system, but life support is sorely lacking. The International Space Station needs to be resupplied every couple of months to support a crew of 2-6. Even on Earth, we are unable to construct a viable isolated and self-sufficient environment. Besides, even the engineering effort required to make rockets that can lift enough weight for a manned spacecraft to another planet (which would likely be in the order of several thousand tons, if we stick to chemical propellant) would exceed any other engineering challenge we've ever faced. And that's just to lift the thing off the ground, which would probably turn out to be the simplest part of the mission.

Barring a revolution in materials science and propulsion in vacuum, we're not going anywhere. But then again, both could be just around the corner, there are already several unmanned probes using non-chemical propulsion systems. If you ask me, the single greatest problem we have to fix is self-sufficiency and life support for long-term missions.

alphaniner
December 8th, 2009, 12:05 AM
Wrong. We do have the spacecraft guidance and propulsion system, but life support is sorely lacking. The International Space Station needs to be resupplied every couple of months to support a crew of 2-6. Even on Earth, we are unable to construct a viable isolated and self-sufficient environment. Besides, even the engineering effort required to make rockets that can lift enough weight for a manned spacecraft to another planet (which would likely be in the order of several thousand tons, if we stick to chemical propellant) would exceed any other engineering challenge we've ever faced. And that's just to lift the thing off the ground, which would probably turn out to be the simplest part of the mission.

Maybe I'm misunderstanding, but I think the folks at Mars Underground would disagree. They have had a viable, cost-effective plan for years.

Exodist
December 8th, 2009, 12:05 AM
Sure, we have the technology to build some spaceships that can leave Earth, but with the current technology, it won't go anywhere much farther than the outer reaches of the solar system (beyond that, the passengers would be long dead). So what's the point?

Its a start. If we can learn to really live and work in space, then we will then overcome the first obstacle in space exploration. Propulsion/travel speed is only a small part of a bigger picture.

frenchn00b
December 8th, 2009, 07:38 AM
Its a start. If we can learn to really live and work in space, then we will then overcome the first obstacle in space exploration. Propulsion/travel speed is only a small part of a bigger picture.

the quantic physic has to be reinvented. Speed of light is not enough.

There is gates to travel faster, very surely n probably. Black hole is an example how to can change the 3 Dimensional view of our world. It is more complex, and one can travel faster than speed of light, very surely: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_hole

Sin@Sin-Sacrifice
December 8th, 2009, 08:42 AM
There was a professor on Coast 2 Coast last night talking about some theory about bending space and he said they were close but who knows when listening to George Noory (I was playing with my custom Arch so barely listening). Could be a load... I also agree that 2012 should be left out of this... it's translated as being a "transformation". Who could know what that means aside from the people that wrote the prediction and made the calendar.

With that I would say the best solution to the pay load would be individual crafts. Still have the problem of food and energy though. About cooling machine parts mentioned in this thread............ Space is -455F or 2.27K so I would think it would only be until you make it out of the atmosphere.

jespdj
December 8th, 2009, 09:49 AM
We don't have to worry about anything. In 2012, the Doctor (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doctor_who) will come and rescue us:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/8/8f/TARDIS1.jpg/180px-TARDIS1.jpg

Exodist
December 8th, 2009, 09:52 AM
I had a huge page of information I was just fixing to post and I closed the tab on firefox I was posting on.. /ARGH!!!!

Pasdar
December 8th, 2009, 10:00 AM
It required so many countries to put together the international space station together over a very long period, only 5-6 people are in it at a time (quite small living area). Yet, some amateurs think they can put together a starship??

If you really want to build a starship, you would:
1. build a base on the moon,
2. start mining the moon for the needed metals,
3. build a factory to turn all the ore into the sheets/bolts/etc what you need (up to the standards needed),
4. start building on the moon and launch it from there.

Now here come the major problems: you will die if you stay in space too long. Our bodies can not take the radiation and we can't protect against it. Here is another problem: micro-meteorites that will hit your craft all the time, how are you going to protect the vehicle? etc, etc, etc,...

We're very far from actually being able to survive in space. You think weight-less is just a problem of inconvenience? Did you know that even with heavy daily training schedules astronauts that come back are quite weak? their bones have lost quite some density, etc?.. we can't stand weightlessness... you'll die, and if you manage to bare any child, and the child manages to grow up (if he even grows up) he will not be able to stand the gravity of earth... there will be no bone in his body to carry him... as simple as that.

Exodist
December 8th, 2009, 10:15 AM
LOL @ Pasdar,
Do not under estimate someones intelligence or compare them to so called scientist that had a rich mommy and daddy to send them to MIT. Its actually very rude.
I know what my knowledge level is and what my IQ is. I am also sure someone else here may be higher, maybe a lot higher. That being said, NASA would kill for me if I had been able to finish college. I am also sure others are in my shoes. Now please, play nice with the kiddies..

lethalfang
December 8th, 2009, 10:18 AM
Wrong. We do have the spacecraft guidance and propulsion system, but life support is sorely lacking. The International Space Station needs to be resupplied every couple of months to support a crew of 2-6. Even on Earth, we are unable to construct a viable isolated and self-sufficient environment. Besides, even the engineering effort required to make rockets that can lift enough weight for a manned spacecraft to another planet (which would likely be in the order of several thousand tons, if we stick to chemical propellant) would exceed any other engineering challenge we've ever faced. And that's just to lift the thing off the ground, which would probably turn out to be the simplest part of the mission.

Barring a revolution in materials science and propulsion in vacuum, we're not going anywhere. But then again, both could be just around the corner, there are already several unmanned probes using non-chemical propulsion systems. If you ask me, the single greatest problem we have to fix is self-sufficiency and life support for long-term missions.

Propulsion in vacuum is hardly an issue because there is no drag in vacuum. The most difficult (i.e., energy consuming) part is indeed lifting the rocket from the earth.

Hyporeal
December 8th, 2009, 11:17 AM
the quantic physic has to be reinvented. Speed of light is not enough.

The speed of light ought to be fine for scooting around the solar system. Even other systems such as Alpha Centauri are within reason if we can get pretty close to the speed of light. Humans are no strangers to long voyages. Traversing the galaxy won't be possible without a major breakthrough, however.

gnuvistawouldbecool
December 8th, 2009, 12:23 PM
Someone invented a way to get people to Jupiter in a reasonable amount of time in the late 50s/early 60s. It is, unfortunately, banned due to the Partial Test Ban Treaty, preventing the Project Orion craft idea from being used. Shame really, it is really good for the purposes of what you seem to want.
I can understand the banning of Nuclear devices being tested on the ground, and to an extent in space, but it shouldn't be at the expense of scientific progress. However, funding is the real issue, and for some reason governments prefer to spend on the next big thing (especially if it makes a big (non-nuclear) boom), or on a (failing) bank....
Another way of getting up there would be to use a large Maglev track as a linear accelerator and launch things to escape velocity that way, though you would need a lot of track, a lot of empty expanse and a few Power Stations to do so. The fact that the US navy is testing a Railgun does show this could be done at least for cargo, with enough funding....
And eventually someone might get somewhere with carbon Nanotubes, and get us a Space Elevator.

Once you have a cheap way of getting to orbit it would be easier and then can build something up there, since you want a spacecraft, not something to fly in and out of atmosphere. Considering these methods need maybe 50 years to get anywhere with them, you might have fusion by then, in which case the best bet is likely to use a Stanford Torus with a Bussard Ramjet in the middle.....

A Stanford Torus, by the way, would be the biggest structure ever built, unless you got the Elevator first. It would be about 2 or more kilometers across, and spinning, to achieve a useful liveable environment. It would be possibly the most plausible way of getting a maintainable self-sustaining environment anywhere though.

If you want nearest planet that isn't Mars but would be usefully liveable, you have a 10 light year or more trip...


In 3 Years though, you wish....

alexfish
December 8th, 2009, 12:45 PM
I sincerely hope this ws some kind of a joke attempt. You do realise the difference between shooting off a half a kilo of solid propellant in plastic wrap a couple hundred meters up and launching a dozen tons of payload into earth orbit, right?

Also, you'd need over 20 square metres of superlight solar sail to propel anything that heavy with non-negligible acceleration, and that's if you'd started out in space to begin with.

YES , but my Budget is very slim
But ,Have You got 20 square metres of superlight solar Kite you could lend me

Thanks in Advance

alexfish

alexfish
December 8th, 2009, 12:57 PM
Oh, almost forgot that 29.99 rocket from ModelZone only got to 150 ft

Bought a one For 49.99

Do you think that kite thing will fit on top of it

soni1770
December 8th, 2009, 01:28 PM
i think your onto a winner,

prob use a stunt kite, then we can buzz the ufo's

alexfish
December 8th, 2009, 01:48 PM
i think your onto a winner,

prob use a stunt kite, then we can buzz the ufo's

Thanks

My design Principal is very basic

What would happen if humans could deliberately create a Blackhole ,Well, for starters we might just unlock the ultimate energy source to create the ultimate spacecraft engine — a potential "black hole-drive" to propel ships to the stars

It turns out “Blackholes” are not black at all; they give off “Hawking Radiation" that causes them to lose energy (and therefore mass) over time. For “large black holes”, the amount of radiation produced is miniscule, but very small black holes rapidly turn their mass into a huge amount of energy.

This fact prompted Lois Crane and Shawn Westmoreland of Kansas State University to calculate what it would take to ( “create a small black hole” and harness the energy to propel a starship. )



They found that there is a ("sweet spot" for black holes) that are small enough to be artificially created and to produce enormous amounts of energy, “but are large enough” that they don't immediately evaporate in a burst of particles. Their ideal black hole would have a mass of about a “million metric tons “ and would be about “ one one-thousandth the size of a proton.”



To create such a black hole, Crane and Westmoreland envision a “massive spherical gamma-ray laser “ in space powered by thousands of square kilometers of solar panels.



After charging for a few years, this laser would release the pent-up energy equivalent to a million metric tons of mass in a converging spherical shell of photons. As the “ shell collapses in on itself,” the energy becomes so dense that its own gravity focuses it down to a single point and a black hole is born.



The black hole would immediately begin to disgorge all the energy that was compressed to form it.
To harness that energy and “ propel a starship,” the black hole would be placed at the “center of a parabolic electron-gas mirror “ that would reflect all the energy radiated from the black hole out the back of the ship, propelling the ship forward. “Particle beams attached to the ship behind the black hole “ would be used to simultaneously feed the black hole and propel it along with the ship.


Hence

“The reason for the mirror Kite Thing ” and the “ 29.99 Rocket from ModelZone “

Now upgraded to the “49.99 Rocket “.


Such a black hole drive could easily accelerate to near the speed of light opening up the cosmos to human travelers


I have Intellectual rights to these

“Mirror Kite Thing ” and the “ 49.99 Rocket from ModelZone and a Ball of string
from the now defunct Wolworths“

And also “ DRM Rights “ to the Ball of String and Two tin cans attached at each end for “communications “

Foul Proof

" What do you Think "

Regards

alexfish

alexfish
December 8th, 2009, 02:49 PM
i think your onto a winner,

prob use a stunt kite, then we can buzz the ufo's

Hi

Do you think Your kite would Work better For This Kind of Massive Under Taking

You Can Have Free B&B On board if it Works

No, On second thoughts you can have "ALL INCLUSIVE" in the Captains Quarters

Regards

alexfish

PS what kind of rocket would you use

soni1770
December 8th, 2009, 03:39 PM
great!

stunt kite attatched to black hole, it's all coming together, in the captains quarters we'll build a giant movie theater, i can make some spare cash selling :popcorn:

we'll use the Penrose Process

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Penrose_process

for power,


as for what rocket to use...

i think it's best to use a red one.

i just think red ones are cooler than blue one, what do you think?

alexfish
December 8th, 2009, 07:13 PM
great!

stunt kite attatched to black hole, it's all coming together, in the captains quarters we'll build a giant movie theater, i can make some spare cash selling :popcorn:

we'll use the Penrose Process

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Penrose_process

for power,


as for what rocket to use...

i think it's best to use a red one.

i just think red ones are cooler than blue one, what do you think?

MAGIC!

Busy Testing that 49.99 rocket

WHOOPS

forgot to let go of the STRiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iing********************************************** ****************** WOOOSH



Quick tie that Tin Can to the Other of String

I Will Give you a "Tin to Tin Call" When I Get Back

AAHHHH Anybody GOT A PARACHUTE

xir_
December 8th, 2009, 07:52 PM
LOL @ Pasdar,
Do not under estimate someones intelligence or compare them to so called scientist that had a rich mommy and daddy to send them to MIT. Its actually very rude.
I know what my knowledge level is and what my IQ is. I am also sure someone else here may be higher, maybe a lot higher. That being said, NASA would kill for me if I had been able to finish college. I am also sure others are in my shoes. Now please, play nice with the kiddies..


IQ doesn't measure squat and has been largely discredited for decades as a measure of intelligence.

You asked earlier in this thread if there were any real scientists around, well if you didn't finish college surely you cant be classified as amongst them. As I have had to overcome a lot of roadblocks to become one, surely so could you.

But, If you are as good as you say then go apply for a job with Richard Branson, seriously, he doesn't have a degree and owns a spaceship. link (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/8400353.stm)

Unfortunately however you generally appear to be insulting all scientist because they wont research what you consider worth while, either get a Ph.D, start a company or become a politician, that way you can decide.

Until then please be careful of confusing ignorance on a subject with creativity. Because to me it comes across as quite rude.

pookiebear
December 8th, 2009, 09:09 PM
Someone correct me though on this. How much raw material is floating up there already from dead satellites?. With enough metal and solar power you can build anything if you can weld in space?? Can we do that yet? I don't want to go researching the proof, someone here should know. I just thought the material already in space was a key to the puzzle you guys were discussing.

soni1770
December 8th, 2009, 11:12 PM
tin can to tin can com,
it's the best.

i'm working on a three way conference call function, usin open ~Voip

using the triangle theorem

also working on spinach theory,

all we have to do is go straight up, let the earth spin under us then we'll be in orbit,

easy.

Exodist
December 8th, 2009, 11:26 PM
The fact that the US navy is testing a Railgun does show this could be done at least for cargo, with enough funding....

The steam catapult system that we used to launch aircraft is being replaced with a new magnetic system much like the rail gun on the next aircraft carrier that will be a CVX class.

alexfish
December 9th, 2009, 12:41 AM
.

tin can to tin can com,



""spinach ""

could do with some ""spinach"" cos just flew past McDonalds

tin can to tin can com3

got Exodist From Mississippi, USA on line


Tell you what Pity Wolworths defunct need more string

"OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO" GOOGLE this


Just found That Mini Blackhole

Down loading it Now

Keep it in a jar till I get back

Ten Four

tin can to tin can com

Ps Put the jar in freezer its hotter than they said ' /don't trust these scientist


OH and before I forget


" ANYBODY FOUND A PARACHUTE YET"

julianb
December 9th, 2009, 12:52 AM
I wonder if Richard Stallman would choose to escape a doomed Earth on a starship that ran proprietary software.

No! I mean, if adobe-flashplugin is evil then why would you trust a starship that had a copy onboard?

alexfish
December 9th, 2009, 01:41 AM
No! I mean, if adobe-flashplugin is evil then why would you trust a starship that had a copy onboard?

tin can tin can com

'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''Snip' '''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' ''''''''''''''

LATEST LATEST FROM TINCAN.COM





http://tincan.amplify.com/tag/microsoft/

Exodist
December 9th, 2009, 01:51 AM
tin can tin can com julianb (http://ubuntuforums.org/member.php?u=892438)

if you Want the latest "NEWS" Use TWO TIN CANS

..................SNIP............................ ..


PUBKEY 638ABCA0FA3A1271 ubuntu


LATEST LATEST FROM TINCAN.COM

http://tincan.amplify.com/tag/microsoft/

Why are you posting this retarded crap?

chillyomi
December 9th, 2009, 01:58 AM
I bet Bill Gates already bought a planet for emergency escape its called planet Microsoft and Apples definitely do not grow there.

As for a starship I dont think we can quite pull that off in time dont worry if we dont know how to survive there is probably an app for that isnt that right Apple (iSurvive Lite the full edition will cost you)

alexfish
December 9th, 2009, 02:08 AM
I bet Bill Gates already bought a planet for emergency escape its called planet Microsoft and Apples definitely do not grow there.

As for a starship I dont think we can quite pull that off in time dont worry if we dont know how to survive there is probably an app for that isnt that right Apple (iSurvive Lite the full edition will cost you)

Don't worry about that With a Mini Blackhole you will get there before them

alexfish
December 9th, 2009, 02:31 PM
Why are you posting this retarded crap?

Sorry if retarded crap is

"OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO"

two tin cans were a means of communications

in the advancement of science we now have mobile phones

for nuclear reactors / etc from reading post then

GOOGLE this "OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO" here
http://209.85.229.132/search?q=cache...&ct=clnk&gl=uk (http://209.85.229.132/search?q=cache:f9MiicqspkgJ:www.osti.gov/bridge/servlets/purl/10175689-kGfM1w/native/10175689.pdf+meaning+of+OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO&cd=18&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=uk)

So I am out in space now

this is the latest news at via tincan.com

http://www.sciencenews.org/view/feature/id/50326/title/A_black_future

Look at the date on the above Page / read it and / click on the date

bumpers and the bump thread jump to the future

Bump bump and bump here (http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=520091&page=4695)

My Starship Works look here

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iIg5eczY5Ms

Tin Can.com Data Base Error

alexfish
December 9th, 2009, 07:39 PM
"Hello World"

From alexfish (http://ubuntuforums.org/member.php?u=934779) , soni1770 (http://ubuntuforums.org/member.php?u=915410) and FuturePilot (http://ubuntuforums.org/member.php?u=178962)




Our STARDATE 19 DEC 2009

Your Stardate 11 dec 2009


" Database error message "

" THIS IS WHAT HAPPEN LOOK AT PAGE 7" read all from Tincan.com

soni1770
December 9th, 2009, 08:09 PM
"Hello World"

From alexfish (http://ubuntuforums.org/member.php?u=934779) and soni1770 (http://ubuntuforums.org/member.php?u=915410)



Our STARDATE 19 DEC 2009

Your Stardate 9 dec 2009

Look on previous page



yesh!hello world,
we've done it, right now we're sending messages into the past with tin can com

we;re just getting started on the big trip to the big rip,,, come to the future!

alexfish
December 13th, 2009, 05:27 AM
Sally Ride on her mission to inspire future scientists


America's first woman in space has set her sights on a new frontier - making science cool for kids.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/8407139.stm

Frak
December 13th, 2009, 06:31 AM
The speed of light ought to be fine for scooting around the solar system. Even other systems such as Alpha Centauri are within reason if we can get pretty close to the speed of light. Humans are no strangers to long voyages. Traversing the galaxy won't be possible without a major breakthrough, however.
It's possible to go faster than the speed of light without going faster than the speed of light. OUR demension has a rule that says you cannot go faster than the speed of light, but if you don't travel within that demension, you don't have that problem, now do you?

Then we get into if observer A sends a signal to observer B which moves faster than light in A’s frame but backwards in time in B’s frame, and then B sends a reply which moves faster than light in B’s frame but backwards in time in A’s frame, it could work out that A receives the reply before sending the original signal, a clear violation of causality in every frame.

i.e. the craft would exit the wormhole before it ever entered it.

frenchn00b
December 13th, 2009, 09:58 AM
It's possible to go faster than the speed of light without going faster than the speed of light. OUR demension has a rule that says you cannot go faster than the speed of light, but if you don't travel within that demension, you don't have that problem, now do you?

Then we get into if observer A sends a signal to observer B which moves faster than light in A’s frame but backwards in time in B’s frame, and then B sends a reply which moves faster than light in B’s frame but backwards in time in A’s frame, it could work out that A receives the reply before sending the original signal, a clear violation of causality in every frame.

i.e. the craft would exit the wormhole before it ever entered it.

you cannt send / receive signal if you are in another dimension ; they cannot communicate other just by high speed track worm, as you said. But the idea is good. Speed of light might be overcome but some other ways.

Bit lazy to get into paper stuffs, could somebdy post the demonstration of the speed of light?
How did we get to about 299e6 m/s using the quantic theory of bra kets?
Certainly the way is to overcome the speed. UFO can make it to overcome quantic laws, with their ships, so why not us.

I think the way is to suppress the additional terms in the equations.
So that there is no secondary effects, such as acceleration which could kill the person into the ship.

Project Orion craft is indeed interesting. but too slow 50 years. :( what other ideas of propulsion than flames or explosions do we have? It is kind of prehistoric.
Pressure waves or electromagnetic fields maybe...

Frak
December 13th, 2009, 05:17 PM
you cannt send / receive signal if you are in another dimension ; they cannot communicate other just by high speed track worm, as you said. But the idea is good. Speed of light might be overcome but some other ways.

"The signal" is generic. It stands for anything that would enter/exit. Anything that can be compared to be moving faster than light in hour dimension must have some frame where the object is moving backwards in our time. Therefore:

The craft would exit the wormhole before it ever entered it.

frenchn00b
December 13th, 2009, 07:08 PM
"
The craft would exit the wormhole before it ever entered it.

I dont get it. Why before. A ==> 0 seconds ==> B
same time.

Otherwise, please explain us, how you can "back to the future", that might be giving new ideas, because we are all out of idea how to return to the past

Frak
December 13th, 2009, 07:13 PM
I dont get it. Why before. A ==> 0 seconds ==> B
same time.

Otherwise, please explain us, how you can "back to the future", that might be giving new ideas, because we are all out of idea how to return to the past
ok, if you are moving faster than the speed of light, then in our universe you are moving backwards in time. As you move faster, time slows until it halts and moves in reverse. That isn't possible in our universe, but might be possible in an alternate universe. Even though it may be possible to do in another universe, you reintroduce yourself back into our universe when you exit, thus showing frames of reference that you were moving backwards in time. Therefore, you would exit the wormhole before you ever entered it.

Entrance -> Move through wormhole and lose 2 seconds of my home universes time -> Exit 2 seconds before I entered it. For two seconds, there would be two exact copies of myself.

frenchn00b
December 13th, 2009, 07:41 PM
ok, if you are moving faster than the speed of light, then in our universe you are moving backwards in time. As you move faster, time slows until it halts and moves in reverse. That isn't possible in our universe, but might be possible in an alternate universe. Even though it may be possible to do in another universe, you reintroduce yourself back into our universe when you exit, thus showing frames of reference that you were moving backwards in time. Therefore, you would exit the wormhole before you ever entered it.

Entrance -> Move through wormhole and lose 2 seconds of my home universes time -> Exit 2 seconds before I entered it. For two seconds, there would be two exact copies of myself.

Oh man, you are right. Could be useful for passing exams ;)

Frak
December 13th, 2009, 08:02 PM
Oh man, you are right. Could be useful for passing exams ;)
Absolutely

pelle.k
December 13th, 2009, 09:33 PM
I think the way is to suppress the additional terms in the equations.
So that there is no secondary effects, such as acceleration which could kill the person into the ship.
If you take a "shortcut" there may not be a need for high speeds. Also, there is some scientists speculating that dark energy or the zero point field may be what's creating gravity and/or inertia (i.e. the illusion of mass), and with a better understanding of that, we might one day have a device that can cancel the effect of inertia, as well as being anti-gravitic.
With some basic understanding of inertia, gravity and the ZPF field, we might even be able to create a "warp drive", that could hypothetically could enable us to do faster than light travel without breaking the laws of general relativity theory.

Som interesting links:
http://www.nasa.gov/centers/glenn/technology/warp/possible.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alcubierre_drive

frenchn00b
December 13th, 2009, 09:37 PM
If you take a "shortcut" there may not be a need for high speeds. Also, there is some scientists speculating that dark energy or the zero point field may be what's creating gravity and/or inertia (i.e. the illusion of mass), and with a better understanding of that, we might one day have a device that can cancel the effect of inertia, as well as being anti-gravitic.
With some basic understanding of inertia, gravity and the ZPF field, we might even be able to create a "warp drive", that could hypothetically could enable us to do faster than light travel without breaking the laws of general relativity theory.

Som interesting links:
http://www.nasa.gov/centers/glenn/technology/warp/possible.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alcubierre_drive

Ah finally the revelation for our thread !! Thanks that's teh best post of this thread.

frenchn00b
December 17th, 2009, 06:29 AM
I do not think that teleportation is possible. How can you get a person A to teleport him to B, without exploding the molecular structure. There is no way to rebuilt the atoms... electrons.. neutrino like it was before.
Machine that can rebuild or build those very small particles, identical, or I am not aware?

Regarding travelling at high speed, why cannot we think to overcome the speed of light? Faster. C is defined, ok, but why not faster? Neutrinos arent moving fasters? The smaller.
No single material could resist the tremendous heat due to the speed at the interface ship/atmosphere, linked to friction. But in space, it is different, higher speeds are allowed, readily. Is that fairly possible this wrap-higher-light-speed?

edit:
indeed fast that light, might be possible:

heory for a faster-than-light "warp drive" but it is not possible either to realise it factly.

alexfish
December 17th, 2009, 07:43 AM
I dont get it. Why before. A ==> 0 seconds ==> B
same time.

Otherwise, please explain us, how you can "back to the future", that might be giving new ideas, because we are all out of idea how to return to the past



all time starts at 0 True : -0 == 0 == -0 : +0 == -0 == 0 :+0 == 0 == +0

What is False

frenchn00b
December 17th, 2009, 08:09 AM
One big planet attracts smaller. Ok, it is easy, it fits into equations.
A black hole, is tiny, thin, small, dense, and attracts too, right? How can you explain that with hands? Does it really still follow our conventional quantic physic equations?

alexfish
December 17th, 2009, 08:59 AM
One big planet attracts smaller. Ok, it is easy, it fits into equations.
A black hole, is tiny, thin, small, dense, and attracts too, right? How can you explain that with hands? Does it really still follow our conventional quantic physic equations?

Not Till You Arrive At Product

Any Equation used in education is Based on What We Know at Present

Nothing Stops The imagination Re: who can't say that false could be true Mathematically

Webers Theory led to this
http://www.bearsoft.co.uk/Gif_equns2/B_mqvxrO4p.gif
http://www.bearsoft.co.uk/MagF2.html

Home Page http://www.bearsoft.co.uk/index.html

Ready For the Bump / Star date 10.04 + 1

klnnurv
May 11th, 2011, 06:03 PM
2012 nonsense aside, who is actually interested in a real collaborative project to design an ope-source spacecraft thats impressive enough to be called a starship? think of it as a sort of flexible 'developer platform' that can evolve to accommodate whatever technology becomes practical. any takers?

Elfy
May 11th, 2011, 06:46 PM
Closing old thread.