Space Discussion Thread

[icecruncher]

I saw this thread the first time today. Didn't notice immediately that it was in the off-topic area.

I thought it would be a discussion about how much space you have in various style hosts

I need to pay more attention

Edit 6/2/16:
We've diverged into a wide range of different space related topics outside of interstellar, so I'm changing the prompt and title of the thread from "Interstellar Space Travel" to "Space Discussion Thread". The original topic is still relevant, but feel free to post about anything else space-related.

So far, we've talked about the challenges and demand for FTL, a little bit of astronomy, a little bit of physics, propulsion technology, space suits, terraforming, solar system exploration, colonization, and more.


**Original***********************************************************************
Do you guys think we're ever going to be capable of interstellar space travel? What do you think it'll be like?

Even though space technology has sped up a lot with privatization, I still think we aren't innovating fast enough.

There's a lot of hype about a Martian colony, but it's currently bound to be disappointing for most of us and unreasonable for civilian life. I think that the only way humanity will be able to truly inhabit another planet is to find one that's very similar to Earth, but the only ones are outside our solar system.

Problem is that we're still pretty far from any technology that could get a human to a different solar system within their lifespan.

What do you all think?
*******************************************************************************

 

[Benm]

I wonder if the 9th planet that they can't find is very dark, that would explain why they are having trouble finding it. They say it's mass should be about 10 times that of earth so it's not likely small.

It will be hard to find because it is far away, far from the sun and therefor likely to be very dim even with a high albedo. What makes it most hard is that we don't really know where to look for it, or even for certain that it exists: The latter has only been proposed because -something- is affecting the orbits of other trans-neptunian objects we have observed.

In theory it could just be a bundle of smaller objects orbiting eachother, though at that mass they should have coagulated at some point.


Also, we prove to be generally bad at finding things: Remember the MH370 flight that went missing well over 2 years ago? It's a bloody big B777-200ER airplane and we can't find it in the oceans of our own planet, despite all our observation systems that were operational when it got lost.

Finding a needle in a haystack only requires a match, a magnet or both, but to a try to find a cocktail sausage stick in a haystack and report back on that effort

 

[InfinitusEquitas]

 

[NightExplorer96]

Or this!

-Alex

 

[Benm]

I'm not really sure what the difference is between a planet and a roughly spherical gas cloud, apart from that a planet must orbit a star.

I suppose there is an upper limit to the size of either that prevents them from eventually condensing into a star though if they are comprised of mostly hydrogen or other fusible atoms.

Also, density is not uniform. On average the density can be anything you want depening on how you define the edge of a gas planet. If you choose a fairly wide edge (say all that has a density of over 1 g/m3 or something) the average density might be fairly low, but there would still be a center with a large density.

Even for a planet like earth with a pretty clear boundary between planet and atmosphere the differences are pretty large. Surface water has a density of about 1 kg/dm3, surface rock about 3 kg/dm3, but the inner core is at 13 kg/dm3, with the average in the order of 5 kg/m3 for the entire planet (i.e. all that is below the atmosphere, though even all of that is a very thin shell on earth).

 

[RedCowboy]

These CME's and flares are absolutely huge, yet unimaginably tiny on the scale of the universe.

Don't miss 14:00 below.

 

[Shakenawake]

...In theory it could just be a bundle of smaller objects orbiting eachother, though at that mass they should have coagulated at some point....

I think you meant "coalesced"
:crackup:

 

[Benm]

Yeah... my background is in chemistry and i guess terminology sticks from time to time

 

[Rivem]

Yeah... my background is in chemistry and i guess terminology sticks from time to time

I knew it! It's not like our conversation about fume hoods gave it away. :na:

I think you meant "coalesced"
:crackup:

I think you meant "accreted". :crackup:

I don't like the tense, but talk to legitimate professional astronomers, and they're always throwing accretion around.

 

[Shakenawake]

:crackup:

part of the definition of accreted:

"grow by accumulation or coalescence."

semantics lol

 

[Rivem]

:crackup:

part of the definition of accreted:

"grow by accumulation or coalescence."

semantics lol

Exactly the point, I just wouldn't want to say that around a professional since they're uptight on the terminology.

Unless of course I (or others) wanted to trigger them.:evil:

 

[Shakenawake]

looks like it is the most used term. however, within this article I also found the other two:crackup:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Accretion_(astrophysics)

"As the Universe continued to expand and cool, the atoms lost enough kinetic energy, and dark matter coalesced sufficiently, to form protogalaxies."

"As dust particles grow by coagulation, they acquire increasingly large relative velocities with respect to other particles in their vicinity, as well as a systematic inward drift velocity, that leads to destructive collisions, and thereby limit the growth of the aggregates to some maximum size."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nebular_hypothesis

"These clouds are gravitationally unstable, and matter coalesces within them to smaller denser clumps, which then rotate, collapse, and form stars."

 

[Rivem]

looks like it is the most used term. however, within this article I also found the other two:crackup:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Accretion_(astrophysics)

"As the Universe continued to expand and cool, the atoms lost enough kinetic energy, and dark matter coalesced sufficiently, to form protogalaxies."

"As dust particles grow by coagulation, they acquire increasingly large relative velocities with respect to other particles in their vicinity, as well as a systematic inward drift velocity, that leads to destructive collisions, and thereby limit the growth of the aggregates to some maximum size."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nebular_hypothesis

"These clouds are gravitationally unstable, and matter coalesces within them to smaller denser clumps, which then rotate, collapse, and form stars."

That's awesome. You don't know how much crap I get about this sort of stuff from my physics and astronomy major buddies. :crackup: I'd show it to them, but they'll get defensive and probably go edit the article.

Joke's on them though. Engineers make more money and don't need PhDs to be competitive.

Edit: Then again, "coagulation" and "coalescence" might actually be related to more specific phenomena.

 

[Skans]

Genetic engineering, and other forms of augmentation would definitely permit for a lot more efficient exploration of space. I'm afraid that those kinds of developments will be stifled due to religious fundamentalist though.

Let's not blame everything on folks who are religious or believe in God. You are suggesting the engineering of a freakish slave race to explore "space" - something that is mostly nothing! Some ideas, such as this one, i.e. genetically engineering humans just so they can some day explore space as your slaves, is just a very very bad idea.

 

[Rivem]

Let's not blame everything on folks who are religious or believe in God. You are suggesting the engineering of a freakish slave race to explore "space" - something that is mostly nothing! Some ideas, such as this one, i.e. genetically engineering humans just so they can some day explore space as your slaves, is just a very very bad idea.

Yeah. I totally agree the moral dilemmas around this are way more far-reaching than religious. Such a degree of genetic engineering would be highly controversial, and I think it'd currently be a very unpopular idea among many groups if it was doable right now.

 

[InfinitusEquitas]

Slaves? Not sure where you got that from. While I do see the potential benefit of having semi sentient automatons, whether biological, mechanical, or some mix of the two, I meant humans, made with genetic changes, to better deal with the rigors of space. For example, in zero G, having feet that are more like hands, with toes able to grasp would be quite a bit more useful.

There is also a fair that in the not too distant future, genetic and physical augmentation will not be limited to those not yet born, and many would love the chance to explore space.

Yet, religion is where most opposition comes from whenever genetic engineering comes into play. Science would have advanced by at least 5-10 more, had basically christians, muslims, and jews not basically freaked out about stem cells.

Imagine the uproar if a researcher proposes experimenting with ways to fundamentally alter the human genome and shape the physical form.