Originally posted by Wrabbit2000
reply to post by XPLodER
I appreciate the fact you're professionally attached to this by what your describing and so it's far more than a mental exercise and blog topic for
you. That does make the whole thing fascinating. I've heard about the 100 year project of course... USA Today had quite a bit about it a good time ago
when it was high in the news. It looks incredible to me. Forgive my flippant attitude before...Sleep hasn't been something I've seen much of for a
couple weeks and last night was my first decent sleep in 3 weeks. So..I'm feeling much better now.
TO BE CLEAR
i am not professionally attached to the 100yss group.
they solicited for the public to imput important questions for consideration to set up groups to explore some of the logistics that would be involved
in inter-solar travel.
i misinterpreted this to mean they wanted theoretical technical papers on the areas they had outlined.
i choose navigation, faster than light travel and communication tech as my briefs
and was not accepted to present my full papers as they were NOT looking for future tech design ideas
With that in mind, I have a question with a bit more depth than my first attempt at this.
I understand and agree with the need to set goals and have a thing to work toward. Beyond that though, unless there is a shadow side to the space
program....this still strikes me as almost absurd to go working on in any serious way. The reason is real simple and what confuses me here. Human
Beings have been outside Earth Orbit a handful of times in the Apollo program. They've never, once, that history knows about, been beyond the Moon's
orbit. The Russians have extensive experience running past our own with long term space endurance and orbital time punched on the clock...but even
they only know the mere basics from that for what can be learned in orbit.....basically, sitting right here at home.
nasa has been conducting orbital sciences from the iss for quite some time now and this knowledge will filter down to tech designers in the future
since the 100 yss has been set up, (although unconnected)
there have been MASSIVE efficiency and bit rate increases for communications tech, which was a prime problem for local and deep space networks.
this is but ONE of the many problems to be solved before we reach for the stars
So....the big thing that boggles me..,.What is there to plan or even seriously consider in generational space travel when there is absolutely
no way to even begin to guess what is out there to build, design and plan for? Voyagers have now hit 2 areas the scientists say they absolutely did
now know existed...and that is still a stone's throw from our own planet, in cosmic terms.
the voyagers will give us a good idea what to expect as we travel from star to star,
infact propulsion may be designed depending on is encountered,
ie we already suspect there is a "bowshock" in the direction of travel of our star as it passes through extra solar space,
this knowledge may influence designs that can use this "gas plasma" could be used in a scram jet manner to "fuel up" and to provide propulsion
Doesn't it make more sense to put 100% of *ALL* the very limited resources into what is immediately achievable (The Moon....Mars...maybe
asteroids too if physics and speed issues can be solved). With all respect in presenting this, it just seems to me that until we can at least do those
...comparably trivial steps....thinking into generational transits is simply building a tomb and sending a ship full of folks out to die by what no
one will have spent the time to know existed?
edit on 7-12-2012 by Wrabbit2000 because: (no reason given)
there are already programs that deal with lunar exploration in the works,
as well as long term mission planning for mars.
those techs are being currently developed, but without a long term goal there is no need for design "inter generational" tech .
part of the considerations would have to encampass more than just tech like the "effect" on human civilization
edit on 7-12-2012 by XPLodER because: (no reason given)
edit on 7-12-2012 by XPLodER because: (no reason