Space - What is Out There?

Oh, and by the way, we are already exploring the moons of other planets in our system.

There are a number of stars within a few dozen light years. For example, Epsilon Eridani is 10.5 light years from us. For a minute, lets talk only about physics, ignoring the fact that we don't have the technology to fulfill it. If we had the capability of building a ship that could travel at nearly light speed (infinitely, infinitely beyond our present technology), a manned ship could get there in, say, a month, from their point of view, because of relativistic time dilation. This ignores also the issue of accelerating up to full speed in a way that doesn't turn the crew to jelly. Anyway, they could look around and then return in the same period of time. They would find that at least 21 years had passed on Earth, but the trip would have been brief from their point of view. That having been said, it is, of course, true that we have no idea whatever how to achieve a speed nearly that of light (670 million miles per hour), but it is possible in theory.

I don't see the value in the enormous expenditures of resources, of materials and energy, to send some humans on what would be, basically, a sight-seeing trip. Better to send out a mechanical probe.

I'm sure that is the general consensus , as that's the way it's done

You seem to be rather slow on the up-take. I was responding to a post in which the author was discussing a manned mission.

If we knew that a star within 20 light years had inhabitable planets, if we had this propulsion technology (again, infinitely beyond us now), and if we were willing to pay to build a ship, there would probably be volunteers to go and attempt to settle there. I think that we ought to have a few humans living off the Earth, even if only on the moon, Mars, or at some Lagrange points in the solar system. There's the intuitive idea that it's good not to have all of one's eggs in a single basket. Then, there's the analogy to the former age of exploration. In the 1600s, someone who journeyed to the new world faced great danger and the likelihood of never seeing friends and family again. Debatably, this is kind of like a very exaggerated version of that.

I have no objection to the idea of manned flights--however, the need to shield the passengers from cosmic radiation, and to counter the effects of micro-gravity mean that the amount of resources needed would be very large. So one faces the social and political consequences of the expenditure for a handful of people, when it could mean great sacrifices for millions, even billions of those who will remain behind.

Maybe in the distant future it won't be such a titanic expenditure.

Probably the most crucial factor would be shielding from cosmic radiation. Using enormous amounts of metal shielding would be very effective in a context in which weight doesn't matter. So launching from micro-gravity takes away the weight consideration. Therefore, i would suggest that the first step would be to mine the asteroid belt. Ships could then be manufactured without using our planetary resources, and launches would not require enormous amounts of fuel to escape the mother well.

Yeah and I was responding as to how this occurs prior to manned missions

You're goofy, do me the courtesy of not addressing your idiocy to me.

If you must resort to insults....

Your previous remark had nothing to do with mechanized exploration as a prelude to manned missions. You just made that up to justify what was, essentially, a sneer. You're cherishing a grudge because of what i said to you in another thread, so you're following me around to find things to sneer about. Don't talk to me.

Actually I came here first so no but sorry the comment was irresistible.

Sounds like an excellent idea. There may also be some things that can be done out there with zero-G industries.

I find ideas such as zero-g industry far more interesting than manned flight. As far as that goes, manned flight makes more sense in the solar system.

This all set me to thinking about the so-called asteroid belt. Ceres would be a good base for operations there, but there would need to be more than one base, becaues the alternative would be to cross the center of the solar system to get from one side to the other, or to follow the orbit, a very time-consuming process.

This from Wikipedia:



With that probe headed for Ceres, we will know, within a few years, a good deal more about the two most massive objects in the asteroid belt. I don't think Ceres would be a good candidate for mining, although one must never underestimate the greed of capitalists. It may have a rocky, partly metallic core, but the outer surface is thought to be ice and clay. It's gravity is negligible, but sufficient to make it useful as a base of operations.

The newest Carbonaceous chondrite meteorite that landed near Sutter's Mill in Sacramento was packing HUGE LOAD of different organic molecules. This was a different class of chondites because of its organic makeup.
Therell be a tabulation of its full load in an upcoming issue of EARTH

Even if some of these things are good ideas, first you have to try to do them and I'm not sure we're trying. The space program's goals are so modest. President Kennedy gave the space program direction by making a long term (10 year) goal that was difficult. We don't have anything like that now, except for a few amateurs who may or may not be competent to reach their goals, e.g. Mars One. We have to fix a goal, such as a permanent presence of some kind somewhere in the solar system and then build up an infrastructure to support it permanently, something that wasn't done for the manned program. We need to have an actual schedule.

I agree wholeheartedly. I despair of the execution, however.