• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

Space: The Final Frontier

W

Woorloog

Banned
JanVSworld said:
I wonder if the other civilizations out there fight and disagree as much as we do...
Click to expand...
EDIT: note: just my thoughts about this

Anyone spreading to stars likely won't have any internal dissent that manifests itself in war, for anyone having enough energy for interstellar travel* will have enough energy to decimate their planets, space colonies and whatever utterly.
In a war, both sides would control that and they'd destroy themselves most likely. If only one side controls such power, they win (assuming they are willing to destroy their opposition completly).

*Assuming they want to do that fast (travel times being decades, or centuries at most), which requires fusion rockets, nuclear pulse propulsion or other high-energy propulsion system. That said, ion thrusters require a lot of power, which doubles as power source for laser weapons...

Of course this also means they may well wipe out/contain anyone they find to make sure they don't have to fight later.

Or they're in constant state of war. Or perhaps they go trans-uh, transalien and inhabit computers and virtual realities (and war there).

Problem with extra-terrestial life is that anyone out there is likely to be much more primitive than us (apes), or much more advanced than us (angels).
Regardless, they're likely to have moral systems that are unlike ours. Systems which may have no issues with internal fighting. I'm no moral relativist when it comes to human cultures and morals but aliens? We can't say anything about them, for most likely they think utterly different from us, logic, emotions, morals, priorities, needs....

Which is why i think we need to be prepared for war once we venture to space (which is why internal conflict is useful, for it gives us experience, though i'm not sure the cost is really worth it...). Probably as aggressors, you don't think about enemy intent when planning, only about their capabilities. And if your (potential) enemy has capability to destroy you, you need to match that (mutually assured destruction), or wipe them out before they can do anything.
 
C

CronoShot

Member
maxcer0081 said:
Gliese 436 B is my new favourite planet. Not because of it’s catchy name, but because of one of the most unusual properties found anywhere in our solar system. Gliese 436 B is a Neptune sized ice world, yet orbits its star at a very toasty 4.3 million miles. That’s almost fifteen times closer to its star than Mercury is to the sun. And yet 436 B stays completely frozen. It is literally an ice cube on fire. The surface on Gliese 436 B stays at a constant temperature because it is so close to its star, and that temperature is a whopping 439 °C. Given that water boils at 100 °C, the presence of ice should be an impossibility. Except its not really ice, at least not in the classical sense. It’s a phenomenon knows as hot ice or ice-ten. It would look much like the ice we have here on Earth, but if you were to and pick some up, you would need a new hand.
Click to expand...

Getting 999 flashbacks...
 
T

Tawpgun

Member
Let's assume there is a planet that has wildlife, vegetation, oxygen, and all of it is safe for humans. It's basically Earth 2.0.

The problem is, its 2, maybe 3 times the mass.

Would we even attempt permanent settlement there? How safe in the long term would all that extra weight be? Would we try to essentially adapt to it?
 
M

Maklershed

Member
Tawpgun said:
Let's assume there is a planet that has wildlife, vegetation, oxygen, and all of it is safe for humans. It's basically Earth 2.0.

The problem is, its 2, maybe 3 times the mass.

Would we even attempt permanent settlement there? How safe in the long term would all that extra weight be? Would we try to essentially adapt to it?
Click to expand...

I could be wrong about this but just the fact that its 2 to 3x the mass doesn't mean gravity would be 2 to 3x as strong as Earth's. I believe speed of rotation and solidity of the core plays a factor as well. For example, I think you'd weigh less on Uranus than you would on Mercury.
 
G

Gui_PT

Member
Tawpgun said:
Let's assume there is a planet that has wildlife, vegetation, oxygen, and all of it is safe for humans. It's basically Earth 2.0.

The problem is, its 2, maybe 3 times the mass.

Would we even attempt permanent settlement there? How safe in the long term would all that extra weight be? Would we try to essentially adapt to it?
Click to expand...

Uhm... People would just become stronger and faster much like Goku and Vegeta.
 
W

Woorloog

Banned
Maklershed said:
I could be wrong about this but just the fact that its 2 to 3x the mass doesn't mean gravity would be 2 to 3x as strong as Earth's. I believe speed of rotation and solidity of the core plays a factor as well. For example, I think you'd weigh less on Uranus than you would on Mercury.
Click to expand...

Indeed. Planet's density is much more important for determining gravity.
Shrink Earth sufficiently and it becomes a black hole, make it bigger and gravity gets weaker.
Atmospheric pressure affects liveability as well, but i wonder if it can compensate for weaker or higher gravity (ie high g, less pressure or vice versa)?
 
M

msv

Member
Woorloog said:
Indeed. Planet's density is much more important for determining gravity.
Shrink Earth sufficiently and it becomes a black hole, make it bigger and gravity gets weaker.
Atmospheric pressure affects liveability as well, but i wonder if it can compensate for weaker or higher gravity (ie high g, less pressure or vice versa)?
Click to expand...
I don't know exactly what you're trying to say here, reads a bit like a mess. You need mass and radius to calculate it. It's also possible to calculate it given density, apparently, but what you're saying is silly. Making Earth bigger wouldn't make the gravity 'weaker', the mass would still be the same, and if you would be the same distance from the center, the gravitational acceleration would be the same as it were now.

To calculate the surface gravity, check here. Acceleration = (Gravitational constant * Mass) / (radius^2).
 
W

Woorloog

Banned
msv said:
I don't know exactly what you're trying to say here, reads a bit like a mess. You need mass and radius to calculate it. It's also possible to calculate it given density, apparently, but what you're saying is silly. Making Earth bigger wouldn't make the gravity 'weaker', the mass would still be the same, and if you would be the same distance from the center, the gravitational acceleration would be the same as it were now.

To calculate the surface gravity, check here. Acceleration = (Gravitational constant * Mass) / (radius^2).
Click to expand...

Make Earth bigger, ie increase its radius (without changing mass, so density gets lower), that would reduce surface gravity, no?
If you also increased mass by right amount, gravity would stay same, no? Density... eh, I don't remember how to calculate sphere's density...
 
M

msv

Member
Woorloog said:
Make Earth bigger, ie increase its radius (without changing mass, so density gets lower), that would reduce surface gravity, no?
If you also increased mass by right amount, gravity would stay same, no? Density... eh, I don't remember how to calculate sphere's density...
Click to expand...
Only because the surface is now further from the center. If you were to dig in, and be at the same distance from the center as we are now, the gravitational acceleration would be the same.

fake edit: Actually this isn't really correct, there's a difference in gravitational acceleration as you go towards the center, so if you're inside the surface radius. For Earth, see here. And if you go deeper, the acceleration actually goes towards zero...

So I guess it depends on how much Earth's size would increase, for the gravitational acceleration to be less. You can notice that it actually goes up a bit when you go down. So you could look at in in terms of density indeed, but I wouldn't say it's clear cut best to only look at that. There are many factors involved.
 
G

Goodacre0081

Member
Maklershed said:
I could be wrong about this but just the fact that its 2 to 3x the mass doesn't mean gravity would be 2 to 3x as strong as Earth's. I believe speed of rotation and solidity of the core plays a factor as well. For example, I think you'd weigh less on Uranus than you would on Mercury.
Click to expand...

Woorloog said:
Indeed. Planet's density is much more important for determining gravity.
Shrink Earth sufficiently and it becomes a black hole, make it bigger and gravity gets weaker.
Atmospheric pressure affects liveability as well, but i wonder if it can compensate for weaker or higher gravity (ie high g, less pressure or vice versa)?
Click to expand...

his intended question is still a good one. an Earth 2.0 with double the gravity, how would we cope?I personally think we would adapt in the short term but not without complications(much like astronauts aboard the ISS). in the long term we would just naturally evolve to suit our new environment.
 
E

ElbowRocket

Member
Woorloog said:
EDIT: note: just my thoughts about this

Anyone spreading to stars likely won't have any internal dissent that manifests itself in war, for anyone having enough energy for interstellar travel* will have enough energy to decimate their planets, space colonies and whatever utterly.
In a war, both sides would control that and they'd destroy themselves most likely. If only one side controls such power, they win (assuming they are willing to destroy their opposition completly).

*Assuming they want to do that fast (travel times being decades, or centuries at most), which requires fusion rockets, nuclear pulse propulsion or other high-energy propulsion system. That said, ion thrusters require a lot of power, which doubles as power source for laser weapons...

Of course this also means they may well wipe out/contain anyone they find to make sure they don't have to fight later.

Or they're in constant state of war. Or perhaps they go trans-uh, transalien and inhabit computers and virtual realities (and war there).

Problem with extra-terrestial life is that anyone out there is likely to be much more primitive than us (apes), or much more advanced than us (angels).
Regardless, they're likely to have moral systems that are unlike ours. Systems which may have no issues with internal fighting. I'm no moral relativist when it comes to human cultures and morals but aliens? We can't say anything about them, for most likely they think utterly different from us, logic, emotions, morals, priorities, needs....

Which is why i think we need to be prepared for war once we venture to space (which is why internal conflict is useful, for it gives us experience, though i'm not sure the cost is really worth it...). Probably as aggressors, you don't think about enemy intent when planning, only about their capabilities. And if your (potential) enemy has capability to destroy you, you need to match that (mutually assured destruction), or wipe them out before they can do anything.
Click to expand...

Some interesting points you made but let me ask you do you think its possible to evolve ..um passively? I mean do you think its possible for a species to evolve without any hostile tendencies like perhaps herbivores?

EDIT: Sorry for the stupid question
 
W

Woorloog

Banned
JanVSworld said:
Some interesting points you made but let me ask you do you think its possible to evolve ..um passively? I mean do you think its possible for a species to evolve without any hostile tendencies like perhaps herbivores?

EDIT: Sorry for the stupid question
Click to expand...

I don't know, i think omnivores are most likely to become truly sapient.
Maybe herbivores that need to adapt constantly to environment and different predators as well... But what is better way to be safe than to eliminate dangers to you? You can only run so far. So, being a herbivore doesn't mean it is peaceful necessarily.
Of course there are many variables in this, e.g. no competition for resources likely reduces conflict, regardless of other attributes. Of course if there is no competition, nor any other need to adapt, they're unlikely to become anything special.
Just guessing though, i don't actually know how things evolve and adapt... So, don't quote me on this.

EDIT how well is human intelligence evolution known?
 
Melchiah

Melchiah

Member
n7xqTWIl.jpg
 
A

Amir0x

Banned
Naked Snake said:
Astonishing footage of SpaceX Grasshopper rocket going up 250 meters and landing back:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NoxiK7K28PU&feature=youtube_gdata_player
Click to expand...

well if I was never to live to see the future of space elevators and interstellar travel, this is a fine consolation prize

also AWWW @ that bird :(

jett said:
That's pretty interesting. They really need to find a more efficient way to defeat gravity, though...somehow.
Click to expand...

Only one way... space station with spaceship docks
 
F

fierrotlepou

Member
Does anyone here have some good arguments about why we should strive to finance space travel?

For example: because we need satellites in this day and age for communications, GPS, ...

I need to convince some people.
 
N

Naked Snake

Member
eravulgaris said:
Does anyone here have some good arguments about why we should thrive to finance space travel?
Click to expand...

Think you meant strive :)

You might want to make your question more specific. "Space travel" to me implies beyond low Earth orbit (i.e. to the Moon, Mars, asteriods, etc.)... Satellites, communication and GPS is covered by low Earth orbit, and I don't think there's much "striving" left to do or needed there.
 
F

fierrotlepou

Member
Naked Snake said:
Think you meant strive :)

You might want to make your question more specific. "Space travel" to me implies beyond low Earth orbit (i.e. to the Moon, Mars, asteriods, etc.)... Satellites, communication and GPS is covered by low Earth orbit, and I don't think there's much "striving" left to do or needed there.
Click to expand...

Edited my post!

Maybe I should make my question more specific. Why should we continue funding space travel (beyond low Earth orbit as well as low Earth orbit)?

It could be that there isn't much striving left to do, but it still needs funding, right?

We need to keep those satellites running.
 
F

FelixOrion

Poet Centuriate
I've always seen this thread and lurked around. Although I work at NASA, astronomy isn't my thing, but I still enjoy the finds.
 
I

Ikael

Member
eravulgaris said:
Does anyone here have some good arguments about why we should strive to finance space travel?

For example: because we need satellites in this day and age for communications, GPS, ...

I need to convince some people.
Click to expand...

As a very political type of person, I am of the opinion that there's only one solution for ending with the military industrial complex: to reconvert it into a space - starfaring complex.

There's a huge overlap between military and space programs both in terms of technology employed, production system, modus operandi and most importantly, model of business. Both are huge efforts carried out by goverments rather than private individuals, aimed to compete and advance their conflicting interests, and both requires massive amounts of public funding in order to make it work. Difference is, one profits by humans killing each other, while the other profits by humans reaching out the stars.

It is really clear for anyone with an ounce of realpolitik that the very lucrative and profitable business of selling weapons to kill fellow humans isn't going anywhere soon. It is far too entrenched into our political institutions, it wields a huge amount of power and influence, it is far too profitable and most importantly, war is still the ultimate "stymulous package" of Keynesian economics. The only solution to "end" with it IMHO is not to outright try to dismantle it, but rather to reconvert it.

Enter the space race: you can still be "paying tribute" to the same corporations (McDonnel Douglass, Northrop Grumman, you name it), without actually making the world a more dangerous place. You would only need an ellectorate more willing to launch space missions rather than invading some middle east country, but one you are able to gain enough political traction I am sure that you will be able to pull it off. A sustained space race would eventually shift the focus out of most high tech type of military industries away from war, without actually destroying them and the jobs that they provide. It sounds to me like a far more feasible plan than some type of "no war allowed" hippie world.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Starfield Shattered Space |OT| Is that the Great Serpent or are you just happy to see me?
2 3 4 5 6
255
10K
SirKicksalot replied
DF - Final Fantasy 7 Rebirth: PS5 Pro vs PS5 - A Vast Improvement At 60FPS
9 10 11 12 13
649
27K
PaintTinJr replied
Destiny 2: The Final Shape | Review Thread
Analysis Review 2
58
3K
Warnen replied
Sonic Frontiers Final Previews
48
3K
Whitecrow replied
  • Poll
(Somewhat) How Not To Retrospective: The Nintendo 64 Chronicles (Sakhura Baguette)
Opinion Analysis Retro
23
2K
Katajx replied
Top Bottom