Awesome stuff you have to share

[nijineko]

The ship doesn't move at all!  The ship stays where it is, and the universe moves around the ship!

nice star trek quote. ^^ highly appropriate. and if you got it from the article, then consider it a challenge to find the star trek reference, instead.

Try again.  It came to him in a dream, then he forgot it in another dream.

you must be thinking of a different quote, because there was no dream sequence involved. spock's cousin showed up, however. that was interesting.

[dman11235]

Because I don't watch that show.

[Jackinthegreen]

Venus is the closest planet to Earth.

Jupiter is much farther away, not to mention the much bigger gravity would make it a much bigger pain to take off harvested materials.

When Alpha Centauri is "weeks or months" away according to the article, the distance between Jupiter and Venus isn't significant.

I have no input on the gravity issue.

Distance inside the solar system is still important because even if you have the warp drive, as the article pointed out, it doesn't have the precision for travel inside a solar system, just between stars, and then you need "conventional" means to actually get to the planet you want. 

And gravity is a pretty important issue. It's actually the main problem limiting us right now. Just geting into space (and then back inside the atmosphere in one piece) is doable, but still extremely expensive and you end up having to discard most of the machinery used, leading to even higher costs. And Jupiter has  2.64 the superficial gravity of Earth, while Venus has 0.88.

Part of the problem is the fuel source.  As we develop better power options with less mass (and waste) we will find gravity becomes less of an issue.  If we can find reasonable ways to ignore gravity then that will of course help too.

[nijineko]

Because I don't watch that show.

wasn't a show, it was a book.

[dman11235]

It was a Star Trek....book....and you're assuming I read the book yet didn't watch the show?

Okay, the quote is from Futurama.

To a better discussion: Jack: Are you familiar with the idea of using controlled nuclear explosions as a propulsion method?  If we can get a material light enough and strong enough to resist the effects of the explosions, we could improve on the efficiency by creating an actual rocket with the gas expansion coming from nuclear fission rather than chemical explosions.  Rather than wimpy little chemical bonds, we'd be turning mass into energy (much larger energy outputs with much less mass).

[Kuroimaken]

My CD is ready.

Who wants to help me share the sneak peek somehow? Youtube is giving me guff over the lack of actual video in my music.

[sirpercival]

soundcloud.

[Kuroimaken]

Mind giving me a little more detail, SirP?

[sirpercival]

Mind giving me a little more detail, SirP?

Soundcloud, I mean.

[Jackinthegreen]

To a better discussion: Jack: Are you familiar with the idea of using controlled nuclear explosions as a propulsion method?  If we can get a material light enough and strong enough to resist the effects of the explosions, we could improve on the efficiency by creating an actual rocket with the gas expansion coming from nuclear fission rather than chemical explosions.  Rather than wimpy little chemical bonds, we'd be turning mass into energy (much larger energy outputs with much less mass).

I can see that working if as you say there's a material light and strong enough to reliably withstand the explosions without degradation.  You've already mentioned the controlled part of the explosions, and there's also the radiation to contend with.  Instead of a physical container we might have magnetic (or other force) fields to direct the explosion and perhaps absorb radiation too.  The main thing I'm wondering about is whether we might have the ability to cheaply make antimatter for annihilation propulsion by the time we can cheaply and safely do fission propulsion.

[Kethrian]

Antimatter doesn't explode.  Science has broken that bit of science-fiction.

[dman11235]

I don't think anything but physical (electromagnetic force, of the contact variety) force would work, since you aren't necessarily working with charged particles.  The radiation is a non-issue, since you can eliminate all the dangerous radiation easily.  Ensure clean, full fission and you'll have no radioactive waste to deal with even, so the radiation is just normal stellar variety, only less dangerous.  The problem with anti-matter is that you need a physical object to propel out the back.  With fission, you can have the products be the matter (high-energy matter too).  Anti-matter annihilations don't leave matter behind to propel the craft, but you could use it for energy (if it's feasible, might be 0-sum, though it's compact, might be worth it).  Remember: rockets propel via force-counterforce reactions.  The particles fly out at a really fast, and apply an equal and opposite force on the rocket.  It takes a LOT of particles traveling REALLY fast (or rather, accelerating really fast) to accelerate a large ship fast enough to get it out of Earth's atmosphere.  Anti-matter=no particles.

EDIT: Anti-matter does not explode, but it does release a TON of energy.  If it annihilates in atmosphere, then it will heat the surrounding air much like a fission bomb does.

[Kuroimaken]

Here's a sneak preview of the CD. Once I figure out how to get youtube to properly accept my songs without requiring video footage, I'll post more over there.

Tell me what you think.

Mind giving me a little more detail, SirP?

Soundcloud, I mean.

Thanks.

[Jackinthegreen]

lol, I should have known better than to think matter annihilation was feasible for direct propulsion since it destroys matter.

Which brings the thought of whether a non-matter propulsion system might be possible.

Something related to all of this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_pulse_propulsion

And other awesome stuff: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ws6AAhTw7RA

[dman11235]

That nuclear pulse propulsion?  That's what we're talking about.  The propulsion comes from the rapid release of particles, and the rapid release is caused by a nuclear explosion.

[Jackinthegreen]

Playing an organ with Kinect.

Probably the best use for that motion sensor I've seen yet.

[radionausea]

Paste into Google:

2 sqrt(-abs(abs(x)-1)*abs(3-abs(x))/((abs(x)-1)*(3-abs(x))))(1+abs(abs(x)-3)/(abs(x)-3))sqrt(1-(x/7)^2)+(5+0.97(abs(x-.5)+abs(x+.5))-3(abs(x-.75)+abs(x+.75)))(1+abs(1-abs(x))/(1-abs(x))),-3sqrt(1-(x/7)^2)sqrt(abs(abs(x)-4)/(abs(x)-4)),abs(x/2)-0.0913722(x^2)-3+sqrt(1-(abs(abs(x)-2)-1)^2),(2.71052+(1.5-.5abs(x))-1.35526sqrt(4-(abs(x)-1)^2))sqrt(abs(abs(x)-1)/(abs(x)-1))+0.9

[phaedrusxy]

Paste into Google:

2 sqrt(-abs(abs(x)-1)*abs(3-abs(x))/((abs(x)-1)*(3-abs(x))))(1+abs(abs(x)-3)/(abs(x)-3))sqrt(1-(x/7)^2)+(5+0.97(abs(x-.5)+abs(x+.5))-3(abs(x-.75)+abs(x+.75)))(1+abs(1-abs(x))/(1-abs(x))),-3sqrt(1-(x/7)^2)sqrt(abs(abs(x)-4)/(abs(x)-4)),abs(x/2)-0.0913722(x^2)-3+sqrt(1-(abs(abs(x)-2)-1)^2),(2.71052+(1.5-.5abs(x))-1.35526sqrt(4-(abs(x)-1)^2))sqrt(abs(abs(x)-1)/(abs(x)-1))+0.9

Too awesome for words! 

[DonQuixote]

I can approve of that.

[radionausea]

Parachute from space?