posted 02-16-99 11:57 PM ET        

Now I know this is just a game but playing Sid games for years now he always tried to keep to non-fiction strategy gaming.

Even before CIV1 came out I use to send e-mails to Microprose to have the ending which actually makes sense.Like have a ending which the colonist goes to Mars.

That is something which NASA is planning for 2009 or 2015.Ladies and gentleman according to EINSTEIN and recent scientist reaching another star system at least in 2 milleniums is unrealistic at best.

I love u SID and how u are trying to hold on to your creation that keep us loyal fans up all night playing.But having a light bulb flash over my head made me realize this is probably your first fiction game which sort of went to a direction which no one in this generation or my sons--sons---sons---sons generation would not achieve.

I kind of regret buying now,it's been a week now I had it.And already I am bored with it waiting and praying CIV:CTP would correct.

Because I love stategy games which keep the gamer in focus with his environment.I don't feel that focus on this very very distant planet which neither of us know is habitable to human beings....

posted 02-17-99 12:12 AM ET         

Anyway...

Think of it this way.

1900:
Man had never flown before.

1969:
Man lands on moon.

69 years, Undertaker. We went from not being able to fly at all to walking on the moon. Now we've sent probes to all the planets in our system, landed a rover on Mars and built a space station. So, do you really think it's impossible for man to leap the stars in another 100 years? Personally, I don't. Science is always marching foreward, and the more it learns the faster it goes. New discoveries are being made daily, and even we ourselves may one day book a flight to Mars or the Moon.

Really, Undertaker, I don't understand people who really care about nit-picky details. Who cares how realistic the game is? I myself care more about how FUN (yeah that naughty word in the gaming business again) over how real it is.

posted 02-17-99 01:45 AM ET            

Your're TALKING to someone 5000kms away...

posted 02-17-99 01:53 AM ET            

Mostly all Hall of Fame strategy games of the past at least stuck to the focus that u the GAMER can actually be a part of this.

And to Jarovoit u are absolutely right breaking or even coming close to LIGHT-SPEED technology in 100 years is unrealistic.

Pregotive maybe u are a X-FILES fan like I am but I am not that much of a fan to think we already have or coming close to such dreams.

And guess what even if we did had FTL drives guess how long it would take us to get to the Centauri star system.......

Well according to my science book 125 years to just leave our solar system.After we leave our system we are in the Milky Way sort of a big parking lot in space which takes what "this is not in my book". But I would roughly guess ????? I don't think human numbers go that high.

posted 02-17-99 02:22 AM ET            

Maybe with FTL drives or FUSION as mentioned it would cut these years in half.So travelling to PLUTO and NEPTUNE are in our gaps in 250-300 years.

But still the MILKY WAY is a very very big sector.It's like a universal ocean.

" ARE THERE ANY CHRISTOPER COLUMBUS'S OUT THERE FOR A RIDE OF YOUR LIFE"(i say that litterally)

posted 02-17-99 02:34 AM ET            

1) The human body can only stand a certain amount of force at any one time. This limits the speed, and therefore technology, required to go to AC.

2) We HAVE to go...

The only thing that might mess up a trip to AC is the uselessness of it - no planets have been detected there, and no real sources of energy would therefore be present.

posted 02-17-99 08:20 AM ET         

Anyway...

Let's compare and contrast.

1)
The type of technology for launching the Unity (detonating a nuclear blast in a contained area to generate temporary propulsion.) already exists and has been theorizied for use by NASA. However, the EPA has prevented them as of yet because they believe such a system would pollute space.

2)
Think back, Under. If you walked up to Theodere Roosevelt and asked him when he thought man would walk on the moon, you can bet he probably said 500 years, maybe 1,000.

3)
1945, man splits the Atom and makes the A-Bomb. In 1845, the most powerful weapon made ever crafted was the RIFLE.

I am not an X-Files Fan, Under, (infact I hate that show) I am telling you that 100 years is ALOT for technology. Can you picture 100 years from now? Do you think we'll still be launching occasional men to the moon and reparing a big telescope? I sure don't. Infact, a manned mission to Mars was planned by NASA as soon as that funny looking microwave landed on the Big Red.

posted 02-17-99 08:25 AM ET            

Well it will be very hard to imagine. How anyone, futurists included, can predict that far ahead is truly in the realm of science-fiction. However, I personally believe it is possible, albeit improbable but who am I (who are we?) to say? Heh, as an aside I love some of the discussion topics generated by SMAC -- MORE SMAC TALK!

posted 02-17-99 10:14 AM ET            

Even though the technology exists there are of course other obstacles such as funding and (for NPP) concerns about radioactive debris in space.

posted 02-17-99 12:07 PM ET            

That was 25 years ago just to reach Jupiter now what's next-----Saturn,Uranus,Neptune,Pluto and guess what after that which no one wants to believe the universal ocean which separtes our solar system from the rest Milky WAY.Let me say the Milky Way is almost a infinite gap in space.

There are no other NASA satellites out there pass the Asteriod belt than the VOYAGER 1.

The GALLIO satellite was used to survey the MARS terrain for preparation for the PATHFINDER mission.And is still orbiting Mars for prepartion of the man mission in 2009 or 2015 if funding goes well....

Now it was also mentioned if I ask Theodore Roosevelt if we would reach the moon.Let me change that in common sense terms.What if I had ask the Aztecs about 2500 years ago.Which is seen in there drawings that flight was being experimented on the
mountains of Central America.Archeologists has found man-made runways on the peaks of Central America.

FTL drives wouldn't and can't be discovered in 100 years or even 500 years.We haven't even mastered the use of Nuclear TECH yet.You know it's easy to exploded something than control it like a pussycat.

posted 02-17-99 12:57 PM ET            

Pioneer 10 and Voyagers 1 and 2 have left the Solar System (crossed the orbit of Pluto)
The pictures of Jupiter being bombarded came from the Hubble Telescope in Earth orbit.
Voyager 2 has sent back pictures of the following flybys. Jupiter 1979, Saturn 1981, Uranus 1986 and Neptune 1989. Total flight time to exist the System less than 13 years.

posted 02-17-99 01:42 PM ET            

And according to the Pionner 10 satellite which I accidently left out it did pass Pluto and is now on the outer edges of the solar system.Guess it's destination......
Taurus

Remember when I mentioned the Milky Way is like a giant parking lot.It would take Pionner 10 -----2 million years to reach that near constellation.

Alpha Centurai is further away.Now I personally consider this satellite dead in space.

Since we have lost all contact with her..And NASA can only now estimate if everything is running normally.....Until a signal comes from her see could have been destroyed by a meteor shower or worst the solar winds she is travelling on has weaken it's thrust.

posted 02-17-99 01:59 PM ET            

NASA has closed the books on that satellite
on 30 September 1995.Due to the fact that her power was exhausted.No scientific equipment are operating.Nor is her antenna pointing accurately at Earth.It was to head toward the constellation AQUILLA....which take 4 million years to reach.

Now u can get my point about Pionner 10 her communications are loss also we don't know if she still exist out there.It's DEAD trust me if not we and your 10 generations of children would be dead before she reaches Taurus......

posted 02-17-99 02:38 PM ET            

We are in 1 solar system of many in the Milky Way galaxy correct.

Alpha Centurai is another solar system in our galaxy the Milky Way correct.

EXAMPLE:

Earth- is the Milky Way
America- our solar system
Chiron(in the Centurai system)-is China

to travel from Earth to Chiron is like crossing the Pacific Ocean dude.Our galaxy is like a Ocean with the solar systems representing islands.Now if u re-read my post about the 2 million years I said that is whaat it would take to reach the constellation Taurus not Milky Way.

We are in the Milky Way right now but after u cross Pluto u are in the ocean as I like to put it.

Do any of u feel after u pass Pluto u can start celebrating "WOW I AM IN ANOTHER STAR SYSTEM." nononononononono

U have to now cross the ocean of our galaxy to that next island.(ALPHA CENTAURI)

posted 02-17-99 02:47 PM ET            

A scientist name Zfren Cochron invented in the 21st century after WW3 (Warp Speed).
He took off from a rocket and activated the warp drive in space for a short period of time and then return to EARTH.

Gene Roddenberry then turn the story that the Vulcans who had probe teams on the edges of our system picked up those very warp signatures from his drive.

Then they made FIRST CONTACT with Earth watch the movie with Picard now on video tape shows.

Picard said that if Cochron had not made that flight at that time the Vulcans wouldn't have pick up those signatures and humanity would not have the technologic help from the VULCANS to achieve interstellar flight .

posted 02-17-99 02:48 PM ET            

IT'S A GAME!

IT'S A FREAKING GAME!

Ever played "Warcraft"? In "Warcraft", you can cast magic spells. That's not very realistic. With our current state of technology, we won't be able to cast magic spells for another 300 years or more. And yet "Warcraft" was popular. Know why?

'CAUSE IT'S A FREAKING GAME!

posted 02-17-99 02:55 PM ET            

There are some people hear who actually believe we can that sort of worries me a little.

posted 02-17-99 03:15 PM ET            

Some have said that they are absolutely certain that we cannot reach Alpha Centauri by 2100. To that I say, you don't know what is going to happen tomorrow, what makes you certain what will happen in a century? If there is one thing that I am certain of, it is that we can never really KNOW anything at all.

Is the sun shining? Maybe. Or maybe its some big galactic joke that we just haven't gotten yet. Maybe you are just a brain in a jar receiving electrical signals in the form of sensory data. In expressing your opinion, try not to declare it as fact.

Who cares about useless, decades old NASA probes? Once population growth reaches the limit of Earth's resources, you'd better believe we'll have a boom in space tech.

posted 02-17-99 03:25 PM ET            

At this point in time, there is no practical reason for us to leave our solar system. Even a moonshot back in the 60s needed the catalyst of the "red menace" to make it a reality. Just think, that amazing feat (which we now all take for granted) was more or less accomplished in 10 years. It's especially amazing when you consider how primitive technology was back then.

posted 02-17-99 03:55 PM ET            

Anyway let me leap into this fray:

First off, Undertaker, the constellation Tauras is just that...a constellation. These are diffuse locations within the ellipse of our galaxy (Interstellar Space). However, some are used as reference points for Intergalactic Space ( i.e. Andromeda). What Im trying to say is that constellations are not precise locations. You would not hear any competant space explorer say, "Well, damn, fellas, you can sit around on Mars all you want, but I'm going to hop over to Casseopia and take a look around." For example, take Rigel (blue super giant) and Bellatrix (bright yellow, in the same class as Sol), two stars in the constellation Orion. Yes, they are in the same constellation but they are also upteen light years distant from each other. On the other hand, constellations can be used for general directions. Sagittarius, for example, marks the path to the center of the Milky Way.

Now, let me play devil's advocate for a bit:

posted 02-17-99 04:02 PM ET            

This get the teoratical parts addressed. will we get there. Now that is another story. There a couple of issues:

1) motive. Other than trying to live our a Sid Meier game there is 0 motivation to go there. We have not conclusively identified any planets let alone habitable one.

2) Cost. Wow, this would be astronomical. Would stipping the defense budge help this without a doubt

3) Ability of a Human to survive the trip. Physically they would be OK, but the mental strain would be very interesting. (The Shining anyone????)

posted 02-17-99 04:31 PM ET            

And Radiation oops never thought of that one that sways me more to the (No way can we get there in 100 years team)

We are humans beings who can easily die from nuclear radiation far more than experimenting with anti-matter.

And stress factors let put that into consideration.There would be sort of a
"THE SHINING" on this new planet.You think Earth has problems imagine these lunactics controlling the destiny of humanity....We may need robots as a majority to control the populace...My personal opinion not what I would like too see though.

And concerning the Buck Rogers out there that we can reach there in 101 years from now come on guys.Like one replier said we would certainly need alien help on this matter.

posted 02-17-99 09:17 PM ET            

NOBODY out there can CONCLUSIVELY PROVE that we can't do it. Sure, it might be highly improbable, but I guarantee that nobody can rule out the possibility. Just like nobody can PROVE that we'd need help from aliens. Hello people, we're talking pure speculation here, so the next person that says "It cannot happen, it is impossible" shall hereby be killed byt he killer attack toilets...

And Undertaker, if you don't like the game, fine, don't play it. But don't come to our forums with your preaching about how the game is SOOOOOO unrealistic, when in fact you don't have the foggiest idea. Nobody really does. Most of your attempts at quoting facts show that you know just enough to get yourself into trouble (I don't want to count how many incorrect "facts" you have quoted), and I guarantee that you don't know with 100% accuracy that it is impossible.

So, go play CIV:CTP if you want (when it comes out). Hate SMAC for all I care. But don't come in here and try and sway us with made up arguments and facts, relating to something that you CANNOT PROVE.

Sorry if this comes accross as insulting in any way, it isn't meant to be. But I cannot stand people "preaching" their version of the truth, when they don't know what the truth is.

When you are an expert on: Radiation, FTL travel, Ion Engines, molecular bonding, Interstellar navigation, fission power, cryogenic sleep, and about a million other things that would be necessary to land a mission on a planet in the stars, then come back and tell me that the game is unrealistic, and that Sid and Brian, two of the legends in their fields, have created an unrealistic game.

Until then, please state your opinions as just that. OPINIONS.

And as others have pointed out: It is ONLY A GAME. How realistic is Quake, where a soldier can take 20 bullets before dying? How realistic is CIV II, where it takes a ship hundreds of years to circumnavigate the world? How realistic are the Star Wars games?

posted 02-17-99 09:30 PM ET         

Undertaker, you don't like being called an idiot. I don't like being called an effeminte 50's sci-fi star. I'm not a technocrat, or a futurist. I am a realist. Realistically speaking, technology is marching foreward at an incredible pace. And I think that as soon as humanity finds something to be gained out of space, we'll be there in no time. Just like what happened in California during the Gold Rush.

Radiation Point:

Do you think we'll concentrate all of our research into really big engines over the next century? With Zero-G Engineering we may be able to make some funky cool metals, or maybe just Wonder Bread. Who knows.

Think airplaines. Aerodynamics had a million problems. How do we get enough power to launch them? How do we get them to stay in the air? How do we get them to land? What about wind, mountains, yadda yadda?

Well, we can fly now can't we?

Insanity Point:

We already exist in an insane world run by hypocrtical power hungry lunatics. Look around you. We blow each other up with weapons which contest the very fabric of our delicate planet. Can you think of anything more insane or downright moronic?

"Alien Help" Point:

Undertaker, you almost had my respect for your opinion, but now you've lost it all again

Aliens? Give me a flippin' break. Did we need aliens to fly? To make cars? To discover the wheel and fire? To launch the space shuttle? To make A-Bombs? Yeah, let's just sit back and wait for the aliens to do everything for us. That's far more silly than being a technocrat, Undertaker. May I ask, do you ever sit ontop of tall buildings at night and wave big signs that read "Elvis, come and pick me up!"? Just wondering...

I myself don't believe in aliens. If there are any aliens which act anything remotely like humans, they would be here in a snap. Whether to blow us up, bring us greater understanding or just capitalzie on our uranium, the chances that not a single of the estimated millions of aliens in our galaxy have not come to such a gem of a planet like Earth is astronomical. Benevolence to hell, there have got to be some alien communists or alien capitalists out there.

"Coming to AC and nothing there"

Well, worse yet, what if we went to AC and it wasn't there all together? That would stink.

Do I think going to AC is possible in 100 years? Absolutely. Do I think we will? Not unless we can get something out of it, it's why NASA is so far behind. There's no money to be made. It's like the internet. It's been around for quite awhile now. But it didn't get used until it could be made profitable.

posted 02-17-99 10:21 PM ET            

"FTL DOES exist, and has already been invented. The way is quantum leaps. So far, it has only been done with small particles such as photons and neutrons, but that was done on only limited grant money."

Well� quantum leaps do exist, but you can not transmit neither mass nor information by those leaps. In short you can momentarily change quantum-mechanical state of specially prepared system, but this is not matter transmission. And believe me, money will not help here.

posted 02-17-99 10:31 PM ET            

Brother Greg I did mention that I was getting bored with the game but I didn't rule out it's creativity.But I do rule out it's reality.That's why I posted the 2100AD thing I never said it is impossible.I did say if u look at the current technology we have now it would take a awfully longer time than 2100 A.D. which half of this BB feel is in our gasp.

Brother Greg we have a planned mission to Mars 2009-2015.And with our current technology we can have a manned mission that only reaches the distance of Mars.What makes u think 75 years later from that landing on Mars we would land on another star system.

Review my posts I am arguing the 101 year thing which half of this forum agrees is impossilbe within such a time frame.

And u said I made mistakes I've made none.
The Hubble Space telescope was a minor error they did take "AFTER SHOTS" of the bombardments on Jupiter.But the animation of the meteor strikes came from the VOYAGER satellite.A video which NASA cannot wait to see since signals travels slowly in space.

But guess what we will never know the actual answer to this question but just maybe our children will!!!!!

posted 02-17-99 11:00 PM ET            

I just want to say that I was NOT bashing SMAC as being unrealistic. My motives were to just add another factual aspect of this debate...of which this is my last post.
SMAC is a true masterpiece and I absolutely can not quit playing the game.

As for actually getting to AC in 100 years, hell, I would love to see it. However, there are **MANY** obstacles to overcome. Maybe we can get those super powerful engines up and running and get some super advanced electomagnetic shielding around the hull in that time (but then there are still the cosmic rays..oh well). Humm...maybe sometype of space-time folding gate travel is the answer... Anyway, dont expect anything until***as it was said in earlier posts***NASA gets busy and decides that space is the key to human survival. Better yet, let the big corporations take over NASA's job.

posted 02-17-99 11:21 PM ET         

You said that "... the animation of the meteor strikes came from the VOYAGER satellite". No - it did not use any imaging devices - it just measured radio and UV emissions ... check this website to find out more - http://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/planetary/others.html

And don't follow that above quote with "A video which NASA cannot wait to see since signals travels slowly in space." Which is it? Did it produce the video, or are we still waiting for its transmission? (be consistent!)

posted 02-18-99 12:13 AM ET            

Bing. :-)

posted 02-18-99 12:17 AM ET            

Bing. :-)

posted 02-18-99 12:28 AM ET         

And if you're not using the H that way, you can always use a magnetic field to keep the bad stuff outa your hair.

Undertaker- Have you been to www.virtualcrack.com lately?

So it took the original probes a while to get out of the solar system. Not bad, considering they were _completely_ unpowered flights, relying on orbital transfers to gain velocity.

The milky way is no parking lot. The milky way is a galaxy, as you have mentioned, composed of lots of stars, gas, black holes, and other interesting phenomena.

There is no 'milky way' between the stars. Except inasmuch as you are within the area commonly referred to as such.

getting to alpha centauri, while it may or may not be by 2100, is within the technical limitations of TODAY's technology.

One example (which I haven't seen yet) is a lightsail model powered by ground (here or moon based) lasers (they're currently working on versions- see the february issue of scientific american) that is accellerated untill the lasers are no longer effective, then slows down with the aid of alpha centauri's suns. Since once you've constucted the laser array, you've got a fixed cost for missions (more-or-less), you could send a number of unmanned missions with materiel before sending people.

And, since your propulsion is solar system based, it can receive upgrades during the flight.

anyway, once permanent bases on other planets in our solar system become a reality, going to other star systems will become much more likely- mostly because many of the problems of interstellar space are the same as intrasystem space.

posted 02-18-99 01:47 AM ET            

"A video which NASA cannot wait to see since
signals travels slowly in space."?

A radio signal travels at light speed, so let's do some simple math. Pluto is 3.6 billion miles from the Earth. At 186,000 miles per second, it will take a signal just over 55 hours to get to Earth from Pluto.

Voyager I passed Jupiter in March of 79. Voyager II passed by in July of 79. Shoemaker-Levy hit Jupiter in July of 94, 15 years later. Both Voyagers were well beyond the orbit of Pluto. What has NASA been waiting for the last 5 years?

posted 02-18-99 01:59 AM ET            

"Hoisted by my own petard", as they say. The actual travel time for a signal from Pluto to Earth is actually about 5.5 hours. (Too many zeros).

posted 02-18-99 05:52 AM ET            

I do know that most of the satellites that passed the belt out there are equip with the lastest camera imaging at that time early 70's mid.We use to use U-2 spy planes to survey the Soviet Union about 1 mile or so above the Earth.I don't really know the actually distance.But I am sure NASA would have equip there once in a lifetime satelittes with the best cameras.

But I can't advocate this 101 yrs to AC.
You know one thing humanity has always been sure of is to never rush into things which may cause danger to oneshelf.

Do u argee with my future events in the NASA space program:

2009-2015- Man reaches Mars
2030 - Man reaches VENUS and begin MOON MINING
2050- Man visits a moon I think I saw this on discovery channel.It is either the 3 moon or 11 moon of Jupiter,which NASA says is like a frozen ocean which they think has organic lifeforms deposited deep in the sea.Check that one up for me,I will check later....
2075- We may probably visit and start building outposts on Neptune and Uranus.
2099- NASA was quoted that if we can build a international spacestation near PLUTO or at the outer edges of our solar system we can use that as a dock to supply our pionners after they leave our system.
3000 and beyond- Who the hell knows???????

Do u find my idiotic conclusion reasonable:One thing NASA will never do is neglect there surroundings than to just make a bold destination which the passengers can't have a fall-back plan if something goes wrong.

I very very very much believe in the timeframe I set up above I hope u do too.Hey maybe by 2030 u and I would be going to work on VENUS or something I would be about 56 yrs old then.

And if I can remember NASA policy I thought they always probe there destinations before they begin sending manned missions?

posted 02-18-99 07:26 AM ET            

But let's imagine FTL drives were invented guess what they my be used for primilary.

TRANSPORT/SUPPLY

NASA probably would mount a FTL drive on a probe to study that near-star AC.

But a manned mission I don't think so.

posted 02-18-99 09:56 AM ET         

Let's look at that time line:

2009-2015- Man reaches Mars

Reasonable.

2030 - Man reaches VENUS and begin MOON MINING

Possibly.

2050- Man visits a moon I think I saw this on discovery channel.It is either the 3 moon or 11 moon of Jupiter,which NASA says is like a frozen ocean which they think has organic lifeforms deposited deep in the sea.Check that one up for me,I will check later....

NO. Undertaker, you there? Moon mining=big bucks. NASA? Who the hell is NASA? We're gonna see Lockheed, Boeing and SpaceBuses up there. NASA?! Hah! Once space becomes proftiable, NASA will become dead. You'll see mining colonies being set up by steel mills. You'll see refineries. You'll see Pepsi despensing drinks, Microsoft selling satelites. NASA?!? Who cares about them?

This is the thing you're missing, Undertaker. This way of exploring space in this boring NASA way will become obsolete. As of now, it is possible for major conglomerates to launch space missions. Why don't they? Because, the money to get a ship into space exceeds the value of anything brought back. Moon rocks and pictures, big deal. But what happens when we tap the asteroid belt and find iron, uranium, gold and opal? What happens when we create a new material only in Zero-G? When tourists want to go see the moon? THAT is when space exploration happens. Careful NASA planning goes dead. It's all about profit now, buddy.

"Humanity has always been sure and not thrust itself into things"?

Undertaker, if you can just base your theory as in that "I believe it won't happen." I can accept that. But I can't believe such an analogy as that. Out of curiosity, Undertaker, do you ever read anything about history? History is the only way to guage mankind's unified actions. And so far, history states that people aren't careful in the least.

The California Gold Rush, which I believe is very similar to future space, was the anti-analogy. People weren't careful! They went out there with all they had with no idea what to do and just went panning for gold.

Technology? What's this, technology? Who cares about "technology"? Microsoft will beat its drones to death if it has to find the 'technology.' Technology is not the barrier for human development, our own will is. We are not determined to go into space, or fly the stars, so we don't try. When proper motiviation, however, such as money, arrives then we'll be in the stars in no time.

posted 02-18-99 10:30 AM ET            

But that will probably change. Don't know when, don't know how, but it will change. If you were to go to Wall Street right now and ask for $5 billion for a space mining project you would be laughed out of the room (I have done it, so I know--it's very painful).

posted 02-18-99 10:32 AM ET            

You did convince me in one chapter of your reply.Lockheed,Boeing all those companies will be getting involved in space to make the all mightly buck of course.

But NASA my friend would never die dude.As long as there are things out there unexplored and undiscovered,NASA will always have a 24/7 job out there.

These big time companies would still need the scientific expertise from NASA.
And the companies u speak of will be NASA's greatest fundraisers.

And Pregotive u are getting exactly to my point.NASA will not or let me put it big businnesses will not neglect there surroundings.Resources which are in our reach and easier to get.

U really think Boeing may want to get precious metals in the Centurai system,while they have a abunduce of it already here in our system.

That is what's going to hamper exploration in foreign star systems.Mainly because what they have there we could already have here.Waiting for us to eat and shallow.

And personally Pregotive u sound a little like a extremist who wants to get things done.Hey to be honest I am alot like u too pal.

But I can only guess the dangers out there in space.Dangers which we should experiment with first before we start doing the EXTREME.
Look at John Gleen because of him he showed some proof that old-age man can eat and sleep and enjoy space in the future.

Learn your environment, make your environment work for u,then use that environment to proceed.Kind of reminds me of the GAIANS there.heheeh. I believe humanity can accomplish so much.

Let me quote from JFK:
"Humans will still be the best computers."

That is true but to make a far-flung journey to AC in 101 yrs from now I just don't see it happening.Even if there was WORLD PEACE and the $$$ never existed.There are just doors which humans have to open first before that final door says

"YES go to AC, we are ready!"

posted 02-18-99 12:33 PM ET            

"Shut your mouth and let people think you know something, or open your mouth and let everybody know that you don't know anything."

He made a load of mistakes and showed that he didn't know much about space science.

Some obvious mistakes which I saw so far:

"Signals travels slowly through space"

"Voyager 1 took pictures of Jupiter's comet shower"

"No other satelites or probes out there [beside Voyager 1] has been past the astoroid belt"

"FTL technology or fusion could make travelling to Pluto take 250 years."

He also clearly didn't know what star constellations are and that it's totally absurd to say that you are "travelling" to a star constellation.

It is to me strange he can have an oppinion of this case without knowing much about some basic facts at all.

posted 02-18-99 01:05 PM ET            

Anyway, if space travel becomes cheap,
it would be ASTEROID mining. Some near
earth asteroids are practically solid
metal.

posted 02-18-99 01:36 PM ET         

NASA in and of itself won't die, but its ideology, what it is, will die. Slow and careful are for the weak, this has been proven in our own history. Space-business will add alot of complications. National borders, property ownership and so on. And, of course, a miner's risks in space, on an asteroid, with only slightly advanced technology from now are huge. Rioting, new labor laws, it'll be just like the turn of the century. "Enviroment? What enviroment?"

In all this commotion, I expect history to repeat itself. Pioneers will leave ship and head for pretty much anywhere. Draining the Jovian atmosphere for precioucs gasses? Sure! Looking for ultra-rich asteroids, examining the surfaces of the other planets for valuable minerals, it'll probably all happen. Will NASA regulate this stuff? Doubtful. In the process I can see all this land-staking going on in our solar system leading to the inevitable migration to a whole new one. Whether it be just a nation trying to expand borders or a Morgan-esque character looking for cash, such a society would easily provide the motivation to go.

After that, it's merely a matter of the means. And what technology will look like 100+ years from now is anybody's guess. If the change is anything like it was from 1899 to 1999, I can envision it happening, or atleast on the verge of happening.

Now if only they invent longevity drugs I'll live to see it

posted 02-18-99 01:38 PM ET            

The events that lead to human to Alpha Centauri system in 2100:

2005: Scientists discover a planetary system around Alpha Centauri A. Unlike jovian gas gaints discovered before, an earth-like rocky planet is strongly suspected.

2010: A robotic probe is sent to the Planet(Chiron) in Alpha Centauri A.

2020: First man on Mars.

2030: Scientists discover a thick hydrogen cloud moving in to the solar system. Possible catastrophic events speculated.

2040: Increased comet activities observed. Scientists believe the hydrogen cloud would greatly disturb the icy materials in Oort cloud, rendering the inner planets highly hostile to life forms. United Nations Alpha Centauri Committee is established for possible manned mission to Chiron.

2045: United Nations Startship Unity begins construction in Earth orbit.

2054: Preliminary results received from the robotic probe. Planet Chiron is found to be very like earth, with an atmosphere consisted of mostly nitrogen. (See http://www.alphacentauri.com/story/systemreport.htm for details.) U.N.S. Unity construction sped up.

2060: U.N.S. Unity launched.

2075: A large comet is found heading towards earth. U.N. mission to intercept it has failed.

2076: An Extiction Level Event hits Earth. Nuclear winter starts.

posted 02-18-99 03:55 PM ET            

2.) The Voyager 1 satellite I mentioned again is still a fact on my part.NASA has said that Voyager even though it's beyond the orbits is still in the SUN's MAGNETIC field,which means it still hasn't cleared the solar system yet.

3.) The constellations I mentioned is also a fact.Now I cannot believe u are going to attack me on the destinations NASA planned for there satellites.GIVE ME A BREAK DUDE."
Why do I have to lie --Pioneer 10 destination is the nearest star of the Taurus constellation which takes 2 million years to reach.The Pionner 11 even though communications are lost with that satellite and power is exhasted it's destination is AQUILLA- 4 million years away.Complain to NASA if u have a problem with that.

4.) Now the 250 years to Pluto that I mentioned.I made that statement to represent that we will discover FTL drives in maybe 50 to 75 yrs.We will then build a probe or something to mount that drive on it.We will then launch it towards Pluto.I didn't use that time frame to mean we have the probe and FTL drive up in space now ready to go nonononono.
I meant it in the discovery process,the building process,the planning process,and then the ETA to that planet.Which again I see could happen in 250 yrs.End of that topic.

Now let me release my personal info..
I am American citizen,college student,recieved a AD in Biology and LAW doing another 4 yrs for Chemistry which I may say honest is very hard already heheehe in Fordham University of the BRONX for 3 yrs now.And usually the professor loves a damn good argument with his students which in the end reaches a final conclusion that everyone could agree to.

I think now the guys that said here it isn't possible in such a time frame isn't going to reply anymore do to the fact that a few started throwing in names.Which I found discouraging.Hey I have to admit the replies he are astronomial.
In 3 days we have nearly 70 replies.And all of these views makes me and the people visting the forum smarter individuals.It also shows me that guys like u and myself want to see things happen out there.

I thought a decade ago NASA would have shut down and call it quits due to funding after the CHALLENGER explosion.But I guess guys like yourself are the ones keeping her up and running which I respect very much.Please settle down on the attacks.I could have made this post and never replied to either.But with u seeing me reply as often as I can u can also see I am interested and love to share our views of our future that's all.Thx again though for your thoughts.I really hope this topic doesn't reach the 100 border line.

posted 02-18-99 05:25 PM ET            

1) Of course there is a signal delay. It's not because NASA said so. It's because the known laws of physics prevent information to travel faster than light. I don't know what on earth can make NASA "schedule the landing" to shorten that delay.

2) It's hard to define where the solar system ends and the interstellar space begins. It's easier, say, to use the orbits of pluto as a reference. Actually pluto is not always the furthest planet from the sun, but then that's another story.

3) Constellations are NOT physical entities. Our ancient ancestors used them to organizes the stars in the sky. Most stars in a constellation have no physical relations whatsoever.

4) Faster than light travel? I don't know. It doesn't seem to be possible in THIS universe, unless a whole new set of physics laws are discovered. If you are waiting for that to go to Pluto, the sun itself may have blown up long before that.

It's great that you showed interest in space travel etc., but first get the basic fact right.

posted 02-18-99 05:55 PM ET            

As far as the borders of the solar system: Unless I'm mistaken, there's nowehere that's beyond the Sun's magnetic field, or its gravitational field, either. There *is* a point where the magnetic field is so weak that it's only of interest in God's own Jeopardy game. Don't know where that is.

I, personally, would set the outer border of the Solar System at either: (a) the orbit of Neptune, or (b) somewhere around the outside of the Oort cloud, or even possibly (c) a radius equal to half the distance to the Sun's nearest stellar neighbor. But that's a personal taste, and I don't see what it has to do with anything. (Definitely not the orbit of Pluto, 'cause Pluto isn't a real planet, sez I. There are eight planets, unless you count Earth-Luna as a pair of planets sharing the same orbit, which I 'spect is defensible.)

I am also amazed that some point, with great enthusiasm, to the fact that it will allegedly take Voyager 1 millions of years to get to another star. Well, of course it will. It's in *unpowered* flight, Chester! We were interested in what it saw in *this* solar system, so we gave it just a hair above solar-system escape velocity-- it'll coast from here on out. We *aren't* planning on doing that for our trip to Sid Meier's Alpha Centauri.

One last point: Someone here said "And guess what even if we did had FTL drives guess how long it would take us to get to the Centauri star system..." My guess: If we had FTL travel, we could probably make it to Alpha Centauri by 1900. I'm sure *almost* everyone on this board understands me when I say that...

Now let's stop wasting our time here, and go back to wasting our time playing computer games.

posted 02-18-99 06:29 PM ET            

I'm not even sure that humans will ever get to Mars, not to mention Alpha Centuari. It is not easy keeping humans healthy and happy in space for those long amounts of time. It's also extremely expensive. Robotic missions lately have been focusing on some pretty specific science, making robotic spacecraft good candidates for space exploration. In many ways, humans can't communicate all the data that the scientists want in a way they can use.

I think that there won't be much if any exploration of the solar system using human beings. There will probably be at some point colonization using humans of course, but that won't happen til the robots get done .

NASA is supposed to do things that companies don't do, so by definition, if companies are doing something for profit, NASA shouldn't be doing it. There's a ton of space out there so I don't think NASA needs to go away anytime soon. Whether or not the taxpayer wants to keep funding it is another story.

posted 02-18-99 06:59 PM ET         

Some final points:

Kaisersoze:

"Reach for the stars"? Speak for yourself, my friend. Go, go and interview people on the street. Ask how many of them are really interested in space exploration. I'll place a bet of 1,000,000 imaginary pazoozas that more than half don't have interest. "Reaching for the stars," all written by poets, thinkers and people with too much time on their hands. Real life people are interested in a home, a car, a family and an occasional keg of beer. Just a simple, uninterupted life. Nothing more, nothing less. Only when this simple life is revoked or improved do people, as a mass, sway in one direction or the other.

Undertaker:

Extremist? Of course! What do you expect from a wicked Human Hive and capitalist Morgan Industries player?

Undertaker, you may believe in 250 years we'll still be stuck on Earth, but I don't. If Communists overrun the world and capitalism isn't the motivation, world deprivation will do it. It's only a matter of time before Earth will be too ill to support us any longer. And that will push us out no matter who's in charge.

Also, having missed this before, I don't believe man will ever adjust to his "enviroment" and become goody-twoshoes benevolent until either somebody like Sheng-Ji Yang takes over, or we wind up accidently destroying half the universe. (I'm guessing the latter, myself.)

Rong:

I believe when Undertaker said "scheduling the landing" he meant that NASA would have whatever it was he's talking about so that Earth and the other planet wouldn't be facing away from one another, and so that their orbits would be as close to one another as possible.

Okay, enough babbeling, I have some Gaians to execute

posted 02-18-99 07:02 PM ET            

And Audrey and Rong I ain't trying to change anybody's mind.But I would sure like to hear there views.And Audrey I am just quoting NASA's ETA to those constellations.Would u like it if I go out there and push it!!!

And about that magnetic field from the SUN of course it weakens after Pluto.Ladies and gentleman there are BLACK HOLES out there that give off more magnetic field that anything we know of.Are u feeling it in this solar system I don't think so.All fields end at a point.

But let me throw my two cents since a few like given off quotes with insult.

"Never beg cows to release the milk."

posted 02-18-99 07:07 PM ET            

"It's better to be quiet and let everyone think you are an idiot, than open your mouth and remove all doubt..."

posted 02-18-99 07:17 PM ET            

"Project Daedalus is a recent design of the British Interplanetary Society. It assumes the existence of a nuclear fusion reactor--something much safer as well as more efficient than existing fission power plants. We do not have fusion reactors yet, but they are confidently expected in the next few decades. Daedalus might travel at 10 percent the speed of light. A trip to Alpha Centauri, 4.3 light years away, would then take forty three years, less than a human lifetime."

posted 02-18-99 07:21 PM ET            

But I'd like to repeat my point. Why would people want to go to Alpha Centauri? Inspiration alone won't cut it. Return on capital? Essentially nil. The best reason, actually the only reason I can think of is somehow the whole solar system becomes hostile to human life. There is a theory about possible danger of interstellar hydrogen clouds, although at this stage it is highly speculative.

posted 02-18-99 07:33 PM ET            

Well, I'll have to admit you got one thing right this time. Any effects from our sun can only be felt within a 4 billion light year radius, 4 billion years being the age of our sun. So anyone who is more than that distance from us wouldn't have the faintest idea that sun even exists.

Man, does this have ANYTHING to do with SMAC?

posted 02-18-99 08:41 PM ET            

YES: (we can make it there in 101 yrs.)

Pregotive
Comstr
Thunder
Shining1
DanS
Wen_AMon
Thrill
ZAZ
Gergi
Horus
Fragboy
Utrecht
Mindlace23
Rong

NO: (somewhat impossible to get there in 101 yrs.)

UndertakerAPB (that's me hehehe)
Jarovit
Rafael
Scrubby
EskimoJoe101
Zorak Zoran
Wolflord
Deimous
MxM
KaiserSOZE

ABSTAIN: (those who think "MAYBE.")

Trav
iratheous
will
barefootbadass
Thue
Possibility
Audrey Two
Chairman Yang
Brother Greg
IEC1131
Shadwhawk
Mole
Courageous
Wissenshaft
JPler
Gamelion
mooman

THE RESULTS ARE IN AFTER 82 REPLIES:

YES:------ 14
NO:------- 10
ABSTAIN:---- 17

posted 02-18-99 09:06 PM ET            

So now we have:
Yes: 16
No: 10
Maybe: 15

posted 02-18-99 09:30 PM ET            

And Brother Greg I read your posts never got a yes or no from you, but ok you are "YES."

Yes wins....

posted 02-18-99 09:34 PM ET            

In other words I reduced the discussion to a simplified math problem. It is not impossible, therefore possible, merely highly improbable.

PS. I just saw a program on TV and posted a new topic on it earlier which covered the science behind a trip to AC which I won't repeat here. In a nutshell, the program postulates that it is feasible... read the post...

posted 02-18-99 09:57 PM ET         

Anyway, Undertaker, you got my name wrong, although I don't really mind. It is not your prerogative to properly spell names, oooh, vocab use there

As far as improbability and speculation goes, I think everyone is quite well aware of that. This is just a debate of opposing opinions, not actual facts.

If there ever is an AC mission you can expect me to be in on it, I'll be the one duct-taped to the hull

P.S.

posted 02-18-99 10:34 PM ET            

i hate to say this, but i can see the day when some of you will say that you knew that we would get to centauri in the century.
"Predictions are always more accurate if not set down on paper beforehand."

posted 02-18-99 11:29 PM ET            

Well, I'm glad that your point of view doesn't count for jack sheet...

posted 02-18-99 11:51 PM ET            

Well, fellas I hate to say this but it is EXTREMELY unlikely that we will reach another star system within the next 500 years. Here is cold, hard reason why :

The vast majority of humans on this planet are total idiots or totally apathetic. I have to admit that I sort of enjoy the company on this board because here I'm not surrounded by slavering morons and apathetic losers. That may be treating the modern human race harshly, but there it is.

In closing, I've really enjoyed the thread, people. It has definatly been an adventure. A big hand to Undertaker making this all possible. Goodnight all, its time to get a few hours of SMAC in.

posted 02-19-99 12:23 AM ET         

Anyway, Wolflord, you are incorrect. People are not morons, they are simpletons. There is a major difference. People are not fools, so to speak, they merely want to be left alone as a majority. However, when their simple lives are threatened, or offered to improved, people will move. The worst mistake a leader can do is underestimate the awareness of the average man.

Besides, average people are average people. They are shuffled around. The average shmoe won't make the decision to go to AC. The average shmoe is merely the workhorse of the world, not the voice. Whether average shmoes out there like it or not, I can bet within the next 500 years there will be ONE leader who deciedes to go AC.

posted 02-19-99 01:02 AM ET            

Congrads Under here is your 99,but please be careful what you ask for in the future!

posted 02-19-99 01:10 AM ET            

And since this is my topic I would make it one hundred myself.And I would like to congradulate myself for bringing this topic to it's final conclusion

And I would love to play you guys in the alpha.net when it's ready.

Yes I am a girl......surprise

posted 02-19-99 04:22 AM ET            

I would like to clarify you question.
If you were asked: "Is it realistic for you to get to Paris in one weak?", then you answer would be:
1) Or sure, I will take a plane and will be there by tomorrow
2) Hmm. I am planing to play SMAC whole week so I do not think it is not realistic

I think the most of discussion here is because of the question is not clearly stated.
As for myself you too early putted me in "NO"
I just gave a comment that FTL technology does not exist now. The "quantum leap" is a very special effect, which is not connected with transmission neither matter nor information.

posted 02-19-99 05:11 AM ET            

If we can conceive of travel to AC, one day
(100 or 1000 years from now) we will get
there. Got to love us humans.

posted 02-19-99 02:26 PM ET            

You still won't admit that you was indeed wrong at many points.

When you first mentioned Pioneer 1, you said it's potition was around Jupiter. Futhermore, I'll quote your own words: "There are no other NASA satellites out there pass the Asteriod belt than the VOYAGER 1."

A star constellation is only a group of stars forming a "picture" seen from Earth. In reality, they might be as far away from eachother as from Earth and one of the stars in the very constellation. That's why it's totally absurb to say that you're travelling to a constellation. You can travel to a star which might be a part of a star constellation seen from Earth, which is exactly what NASA says. But you can *NOT* travel to a star constellation.

Also, a radio signal travels by light speed, which is constant. In other words, it can not be slower or faster. The reason it takes time to reach Earth is simply because the object is far away in space. But it should still be a matter of minutes or hours of travel within our solar system.

You clearly haven't understood what FTL travel means. It means Faster Than Light. In other words, if FTL was say invented in 1 hundred years from now, it would take us a matter of hours tops to reach Pluto. Not a few years, because that would clearly NOT be FTL, but STL.

You should learn to read and interpret information properly.

Q Cubed

Finally, someone who actually knows this stuff.

I also agree that NASA won't have the same role once there's even a hint of economic gains in space.

Let's think back in history. Just a hundred years ago or so, British Society had a great role in fundrising voyages and sponsoring explorations around the world. There's even islands named after it. Look at today, some people don't even remember BS anymore. Now it's Intel, Microsoft, Esso, Motorola and a lot of other major corporations which rules the world.

Think about a hundred years ago. Man could not even fly back then. Within about 50 years, man was exploring space. Today, we can reach any destination on Earth within a day. Travelling by plane is a common thing to do. There are thousands of comercial satelites orbitting Earth.

Imagine hundred years from now. I wouldn't be surprised that interstellar travel would be common and mining colonies set up all over the place in our solar system. Especially if things turns out to be profittable, you can bet there will be an acceleration in space travel research and investment.

posted 02-19-99 05:21 PM ET            

I assume the nay-sayers of FTL say so largely due to Einstein's work. Please keep in mind that Einstein once remarked after being told that he had proved Newton wrong that Newton wasn't wrong, just incomplete.

Einstein, as brilliant as he was, is unlikely to be the final say on any aspect of physics. Whether it occurs in the next 10 years, 20 years, 100 years, etc who knows ... but someday Einstein's work will be continued and he will likely be shown to have been "incomplete" but not wholely wrong. Science moves forward only when we keep ourselves open to the possibility that our most valued assumptions are not quite right. When science is treated like religion (as it becoming too common amongst scientists) then that is a problem.

An interesting and little known story, although unrelated. Newton once tried to measure the speed of light because he suspected that light was in fact a "thing" and not just some mysterious mystical property of the universe. So, he took his assistant out to two hills that could be seen clearly from each other. Both he and his assistant carried a covered lantern. Newton would open his lantern, and his assistant would open his immediately upon seeing the light, and Newton would record when he open his lantern and when he saw the return signal from his assistant. Of course, light being so fast he would see the return signal essentially immediately upon sending it. Newton's conclusion "Light is very fast, and currently immeasurably fast." That
is the open mind of science and why Newton (Einstein and others) are the true giants of science.

CEO Bernard

posted 02-19-99 05:50 PM ET            

First of all, we don't know if they really arrived in 2100. Remember Relativity. When you travel close to lightspeed time will pass slower to you than someone on Earth.
To the settlers, the year might be 2100, on Earth, it might be 5.000.000 AD. Hell, if it wasn't for the two suns the planet where they land could even be Earth after the Unity accidentally turned round halfway and Earth has undergone a new evolutionary cycle after universal nuclear armageddon!

posted 02-19-99 06:51 PM ET            

as for actually getting there...
i think it is possible that we would be able to have a deep space probe get there sometime within the next century if there is support from the corporate sector.

posted 02-19-99 07:54 PM ET            

What wasn't mentioned yet is the possible change in mankind itself. Who knows how long we will rule this planet (and all others we colonize) as biological beings. The way of nature dictates that only the strong species survive and we're about to cross the border to create AI, or some biological superintelligence that is in every aspect better than actual human beings. If this happens who can say what these super-beings can explore, build, discover or conquer?
And who can say how/if they'll tolerate normal human beings like we living next to them?

For the poll I must say that I strongly believe that "we" will reach AC in the next 100-200 years.

posted 02-19-99 08:39 PM ET            

People like K. Eric Drexler (Visiting Scholar Stanford University), Marvin Minsky (Donner Professor of Science, MIT), and Kevin Kelly (Editor of 'Wired') understand that as Chairman Yang says, "science is an iterative process."

What this means simply is that it builds on itself, the more you know, the faster you learn--remember that thing you learned as a kid, give me one penny today, two tomorrow, keep doubling it and in a month I'll be a millionaire? Some of you--those who are optimistic, may think that knowledge and technology are incresing this way--a geometric progression.

Wrong.

They are increasing faster. One of the main ideas in Calculus, is that the rate of change need not remain constant either--science is progressing geometrically, but the rate of that geometric increase IS ALSO ACCELERATING.

It is foolish to predict what mankind will be doing in fifty years, I'd say its foolish to predict what we'll be doing in five!

The experts I mentioned at the start are proponents of two different technologies that feed each other in this very way: nanotechnology and Artificial Intelligence. These two technologies require no future breakthroughs, no brilliant scientists, to advance, they require only continuing research, testing, and effort to mature. Taken together, they should bring us fairly quickly (some scientists think in less than 20-30 years) to a phase change--where within a period of six months of a year, (some) individual huamns will build for themselves machines that will make them almost godlike in their ability to think and build and change and travel.

Scientists in Germany have transported electrons through space without having them cross the physical space between the two points fer crissakes! I won't beat a dead horse--particularly the one several have mentioned as being killed by Apollo--but I must reiterate, 70 years from muscle power and horse drawn buggies to rockets to the moon, what amounts to a supercomputer sitting on my desk for less than the cost of a used motorcycle, and fusion bombs!

posted 02-19-99 08:53 PM ET            

We have the technology to impart quite a bit of acceleration on an object: someone mentioned Project Orion earlier in the thread. He's right, go look it up.

With an Orion style ship, one could accelerate to near the speed of light in weeks or months--at that speed Alpha Centauri isn't much farther from us than America was from England 400 years ago--and we have substantially better engineers. A 10-20 year round trip, substantially less from the point of view of the crew!

The fact is that governments are penny wise and pound foolish--the US govt. had a choice of three different space shuttle designs--they choose the one that was cheapest to build and most expensive to maintain--go figure! The disapora will start when industry and private individuals can afford to build their own ships--and if you think that's a long way off, I have news for you...

posted 02-20-99 10:13 AM ET            

I may as well comment on some of the later posts

The Orion project is an interesting idea, but a political impossibility right now. Anything involving nuclear explosions is going to get the world in an uproar. It's hard enough to get the go-ahead to launch more conventionaly nuclear powered satellites, something that relies on actual explosions is not happening any time soon, there'll be too much fear of it being a weapon in disguise. (Note: since when do governments behave rationally?)
While it is possible to get a ship to AC relatively quickly (I'd go with a nuclear-powered plasma drive, personally), I'd question whether we've got the ability currently to build a ship that could support human life long enough to get there. A good constant-acceleration ship large enough for a really extended voyage will almost have to be built in orbit. The only reason a mars mission is feasible in the near future is that the ship could be launched in one or two pieces by piggybacking on the Shuttle launch system (the two SRBs and fuel tank). For an extra-solar trip, the ship would have to be much larger to accomodate a larger crew and much, much more in the area of supplies. The other thing that makes the mars mission possible is that we know what'll be there when the austronauts get there; we can send ahead return pods and automated fuel factories that can turn martian atomosphere into LOX and hydrazine. We also know that earth plants can probably be grown in the martian atmosphere. An AC mission would be a blind shoot; we'd have to send more than double the supplies that a mars mission requires, since we don't know if they'll be able to get anything when the get there. If we send a probe ahead, we've got at least a decade delay (4.something lightyears away, so it'll take at least 5 years for a probe to get there and almost another 5 for the signals to get back here), and still no assurances that anything will be there.

The other big problem is, as always, political penny-pinching. As Monboddo said, the US government is not known for intelligent purchase practicies. (Why do you think the Challenger accident happened? The administrators jiggled the numbers the engineers gave them until they didn't have to spend more money to actually make things safe.) Since NASA recently had to scrap the X-33 project, a replacement for the Shuttle is a long way off. The ISS is horribly delayed thanks to the Russians, and until that's up and running we have no way of even starting any major in-orbit construction (unless it's ISS type: lots of small modules remotely piloted together), not to mention that the ISS is going to eat the majority of NASAs manned flight budget for years to come.

Quite frankly, politicians as a group can't understand why space travel is a good thing. They're like the idiots you see spouting off in the newspaper letter-to-the-editor pages about how the space program never gave them anything and how all those rich boys with their expensive toys should grow up. Until we get some leadership that can understand this sort of thing (and Al Gore, despite having somehow earned a reputation for technical savvy, can't), we are not going to embark on many (if any) large-scale projects.

posted 02-20-99 11:07 AM ET            

Unfortunately it seems to me that all of them except for Rotary Rocket have delayed or stopped their projects around November 1998.

But one enterprise that finishes such a craft will be enough to encourage the whole aerospace business world to invest large amounts of money into their own spacecraft.

I don't think that the Rotary Rocket project can fail anymore since they're putting the already manufactured parts together at this moment and their ATV (Atmospheric Test Vehicle) is sceduled to fly this spring.

posted 02-20-99 03:20 PM ET         

Another thing, is there really a ban on using nukes in space? It's dangerous to use them next to the Earth's magnetosphere (it would probably ignite it or something, I heard on the Discovery Channel). Why not test them next to the moon?

posted 02-20-99 08:37 PM ET            

Depends how far above 1g

-- "It's more about protecting NASA's perogatives."

Believe me, I understand. I am very ticked off that the US has been so unwilling to open up space for private (meaning non-government) exploration.

--"Instead, we're spending boatloads of much money on a space station that has sucked dry and is going to suck dry NASA's budget for quite some time."

I think it's a worthwile project (more on ISS below), but we certainly should give NASA a larger budget, so we can get both an orbital platform and a colony elsewhere. Personally, I really like the Mars Direct plan, and think a variant of it should be used to testbed everything on the moon (with the extra side effect of getting a moonbase started) and then get moving.
I wonder how much their applications for astronaut positions will pick up once NASA actually starts a firm schedule on a mars mission...

-- "I think there is absolutely no reason for us the build an ISS."

As Shadwhawk said, it is a convienient step up. However, there are some major benefits to having a permanent structure in orbit. There's plenty of direct applications for it, mostly two very important areas: medicine, and alloys. You see, in a microgravity environment, liquids act rather different than they do in the 1g environment on the surface. All sorts of fancy new medicines and metals are possible, and we certainly need something up there to find out what we can make now.

-- "Maybe we can even move the ISS to Lunar orbit to take take advantage of the fact that it's a bit further out from Earth's gravity well"

Unfortunately, the ISS is being built in LEO for a very good reason: that's as far up as the shuttle can get. There's an extra launcher in the shuttle bay for sattelites that have to be placed higher (or they can be launched by other unmanned launch vehicles). We need a replacement first.

--"Another thing, is there really a ban on using nukes in space?"

I'm not sure if there's a formal ban, but the eco-nuts threw up a terrible fit the last time the shuttle was used to launch a nuclear-powered sattelite. They're all worried about an explosion during launch, which would scatter radioactive dust over rather a large area (ignoring the saftey record of current delivery systems, of course, but since when is something like that news?).

--"it would probably ignite it or something, I heard on the Discovery Channel"

Er... are you sure it wasn't some local-access channel?

posted 02-20-99 09:35 PM ET            

1984 WAS NOT A PREDICITION!!!

posted 02-20-99 09:39 PM ET         

A few of you guys say that 90 years ago man could not fly, and 60 years later they went to the moon.

"The distance to the Moon is 10 million times greater then the distance flown by the original Wright Flyer, and this difference in scale is important. The Wright brothers were two guys with a bicycle repair shop. Apollo 11, on the other hand, was two guys with $200 billion (1998 dollars) and 10,000 scientists and engineers and mandate of a beloved, assissinated president."

The fact that we did this was remarkable. Imagine our governement and society doing this today. Comparing going to Alpha Centauri with going to the moon is the equivalent of comparing going to the moon to the first flight by the Wright Brothers.

Another very good quote from the magize which I beleive exemplifies the reseasons we will never make it to Alpha Centauri is this:

posted 02-20-99 10:13 PM ET            

Er... did you _read_ my post? The Space Shuttle, NASAs only active manned launch vehicle, cannot reach lunar orbit. It can only reach LEO (Low-Earth Orbit). Unless we get the morons in charge to wise up and develop something better, we won't be doing anything manned outside LEO.

--"Comparing going to Alpha Centauri with going to the moon is the equivalent of comparing going to the moon to the first flight by the Wright Brothers."

This same thread -- more or less -- was brought up in the Non-SMAC related forum. I pointed out there that this sort of thing was politically infeasible until another Cold War came along. Unless we got some real leaders, but there don't seem to be any anymore.

--"Instead of sending an affordable hunk of junk (Mir) they are sending a very, very expensive hunk of junk to do research that no one cares about (right now)."

That "affordable" hunk of junk is a major drain on Russia's budget. There's a number of rather nasty incidents on Mir that have recieved little publicity (such as one of the oxygen containers turning into a blowtorch that nearly shut down Mir for good). It is certainly not a place to do long-term experimentation.
As for research no one cares about right now, how many people cared about the television before it came out and they found out what it was? Duh.

--"I mean, when are we going to send a 70 year-old into space in the near future again?"

Once it's commercial, I'd bet this'll happen all the time.
However, that wasn't research, that was a well-deserved reward for Glenn and a highly successful publicity stunt for NASA. It's not their fault they have to pull something like this to get the attention of a population that, thanks to public education, can't tell the difference between an ion and an iron.

posted 02-21-99 03:44 PM ET            

Because it's there.

posted 02-21-99 11:42 PM ET            

Just remember the original Star Trek. In the late 1960's, the technology it portrayed was believed to be hundreds of years into the future; much of has *already* been achieved, if not rendered obsolete.

posted 02-22-99 01:09 AM ET            

DEVIL'S ADVOCATE,
Undertaker

posted 02-23-99 11:20 PM ET            

This depends on rather a lot of things...
what fuel you're using, what drive system, how much mass you're trying to move, at what acceleration, etc.
I would like to point out something about fuel, however:
Carrying fuel for a two-way trip rather than a one-way trip doesn't double the amount you need... it squares it. Which is why that automated fuel-processor we can send to Mars is such a good idea.

posted 02-26-99 03:51 AM ET            

This is my first msg board posting so humour me

Well, first off: FTL stands for Faster Than Light. As one accelerates towards light speed, time is "dilated" or slowed down. This means that 1 second for you could be minutes, hours, even years for a casual observer. It all depends on how fast you're going, (or how fast they're going in the opposite direction, if you make your movement the frame of reference). This time dilation increases to the point where going to any point in the universe takes no time at all. This is at the speed of light (c). Another factor that comes into high velocity flights is the mass increase. Similar in manner to time dilation (ie. it's exponental) the mass as measured by bystanders (I don't know how you measure something going so fast, but it matters not) increases to the point where at c, your mass is infinite. This comes into play with your acceleration. As one speeds up towards c, or even a fraction of it, the mass of your spacecraft, and everything on it increases. This means that you need to burn/use/fuse more fuel to keep accelerating. This effectively prevents using conventional nuclear methods to accelerate a spaceship to near-light speeds. Fortunately for us, Newton's First Law states that unless acted upon by a force, a body will continue with a constant velocity. This means that, except for cosmic dust, the spaceship, once accelerated to a nice speed will continue at that speed until it hits something (preferably AC . Unfortunately, once a ship reaches high velocities, the impacts of comsic dust and radiation become significant. Although the ship is travelling through mostly a vacuum, because of the high velocity, millions upon millions of small particles are colliding with the ships hull every second. As well as the deceleration effect of these colliding particles, radiation present in space, outside a protective magnetosphere is substantial. In fact, if we stood on Mars, which lacks a magnetosphere, within 20 years, there would be considerable genetic damage. (Note: I don't mean just stand there for twenty years I was referring to living there, with no atmospheric changes) This is compounded by the fact that those tiny collisions, occurring millions of times a second, also generate energy, whether it be heat, light or something outside those spectra. Luckily, the space development over the past 50 years has included a suitable heat and radiation shield - but this would not be sufficient for anywhere near the velocities required to get to AC in a human lifetime. So, chop-chop people, some development on the radiation shield is required.

Concerning FTL drives, I think that the time dilation effect must be put in perspective here. When travelling faster than light, you are effectively going backwards in time, relative to observers back on earth. So, should you launch your spaceship to go to the Alpha Centauri system in, say, 2150, you've got as much time as you want with an FTL drive. They could travel there at the right speed to have landed on the planet five years ago. Better ring NASA and see if they're getting any signals from Alpha Centauri. At light speed, they'd be just arriving now.
Note: if they perfected FTL transport however, you'd think they'd at least have FTL communications..
Note2: but then again, maybe they split off into seven factions and are too busy fighting each other to bother sending us a signal

Oh and by the way, for all the non-Trekkers out there (shame on you) warp speed (ie. FTL) is not accomplished in the normal space that we inhabit. The warp nacelles generate a subspace "bubble" around the ship, within which it is possible to travel faster than light. Another Star Trek invention necessary for such high-speed travel is "inertial-dampeners" as I think they are called. This is required because when accelerating to high speeds, immense forces act upon one's body. Humans can only stand so much acceleration - just ask a fighter pilot. I think the maximum before a person passes out is somewhere around 5gs (that's 5 times 9.8ms-2 or 49ms-2). There's a device called a g-suit, and I don't know the specifics but I believe it takes this limit up to around 9. Try playing a decent flight sim if you don't have an uncle fighter pilot. At around 3-4gs you "brown-out" from the acceleration. This could only be overcome in space flight by:
1) less acceleration - resulting in a longer trip
2) some type of device that accelerates the bodies with the spacecraft less than that of the spaceship itself. I don't know how this would work, and frankly I can't even imagine, but I can't think that anyone even 25 years ago could imagine how the Internet could work.
(Feel free to correct me on those acceleration statistics - passing out and so on, I didn't have anywhere to look it up)
With my next post, I aim to have completed the calculations for thrust etc needed to make Alpha Centuari in 40 years, and I'll have acceleration, an estimate of fuel and so on needed. So you'll all have to wait :P

Contemplation Corner:
"I do not know what I may appear to the world, but to myself I seem to have been only a boy playing on the seashore, and diverting myself now and then finding a smoother pebble or a prettier shell than ordinary, whilst the great ocean of truth lay all undiscovered before me" - Sir Isaac Newton

Miscellaneous:
I hope that I've shed some light on the issue.
Oh, and I'm in for a "YES" in that poll, if anyone does another.
Any sci-fi readers out there, if you're in for a more realistic book, try Kim S. Robinson's Red Mars, Green Mars, and Blue Mars. They really make a great series, with a realistic information and maps of the terraforming (really areoforming to use the correct latin prefix) of Mars over a hundred and fifty years or so. In fact, I would recommend this even to those who don't normally read science fiction, though there's probably not very many on a newsgroup about a science fiction strategy game

Any mistakes, omissions, etc, mail me.

posted 03-14-99 09:22 AM ET            

DEVIL'S ADVOCATE,
Undertaker

posted 03-14-99 10:34 AM ET         

Some people have too much on their hands to play SMAC. I don't, and so does most everybody on the forum.

posted 03-14-99 10:43 AM ET            

Also do we have to send a SINGLE space ship out? perhaps we could send " space stations " for refueling out into space now so that we could calculate the speed the ship(s) would need to move at to dock with them then there could be another blast from the engines. Im not saying that that is exactly how it would ork but that could bve used as a way past refueling problems no? its a bit llike the crossing the desert puzzle.

Any thoughts?

Unity engineer Ekim

posted 03-14-99 12:10 PM ET            

Just curious, but does this tie in at all with the topic of this thread?

To respond to the actual topic:

--"So, chop-chop people, some development on the radiation shield is required."

That's not the only problem. The trip from here to AC is a long one, and there's all sorts of things floating around out there. At the really high speed that would make such a trip feasible, even microscopic particles would have a rather large effect when they hit the ship. Any long-term voyage would need some sort of interceptor shield to handle the large number of small collisions that would occur, and guard against any larger collision that may occur. I can't recall the name of the book off-hand, but it contained one inter-stellar ship that used a great sheild of ice, since it was cheap, fairly easy to transport to orbit, and strong enough for the purpose.

--"It probably is physically possible, given yet undiscovered technologies and yet untapped resources, to cover this distance and sustain life but we are likely going to have to Transcend before we accomplish this."

It is physically possible with today's technology, given sufficient funding for such a project. It would certainly be a long voyage, with many risks, and we'd have to wait a long time to find out if it was successful, but it is possible.

--"i doubt one man around 80 years ago(or more? i dont know how long ago but a long time anyway) could realy work out wether it is possible to travel FTL he didn't exactly have experimental proof did he?"

So far, there's no real proof to the contrary except at the quantum level, which so far doesn't offer any loopholes for things larger than electrons. Although there's always a chance that new evidence will disprove his theories, they've held up rather well so far.

--"Also do we have to send a SINGLE space ship out?"

We don't, but any such project involving multiple launches would extend the early stages of the mission by rather a long time, since we'd have to wait for the supply ships to get their distance before we could send a crew ship.

posted 03-14-99 03:20 PM ET         

The required technology to accomplish this will remain always speculative to us, because I sincerely doubt that any of us without a crystal ball can say what will come of humankind and its technology 100 years from now. Maybe we'll all be ashes instead by then.

What is a bit more easy to predict is human nature. And human nature suggests that we wouldn't attempt such a thing by 2100 except for two reasons: desperation (the premise of the game's story) or a massive profit motive. After all, when one pauses to think of the huge cost presently just to get one pound of mass into low-eath orbit, what can we expect for cost to go to another star? FTL or otherwise?

But in all prior discussion, I haven't really read anything to suggest that we would instead try to colonize MARS by 2100. After all, if we are determined to press forward in spite of adversity and cost, wouldn't it be more logical to first go there and develop terraforming technologies before reaching to another star to which we have NO clue as to available planets that can support life? (at least, not until probes are first sent to other stars.)

I suggest this because the earlier exploration missions to Mars (Viking, etc.) have established that Mars DOES have the means to support life----atmosphere, water, etc. The problem, however, is that these substances are available only in traces (and the atmosphere is very thin) so that a good bit of energy is needed onhand to harness the local elements.

As to radiation, the only protection on Mars would be to bury the habitat under a few meters of Martian soil. But that's doable too, with the reduced gravity (about 30%?).

If a habitat on Mars could be established, and that habitat eventually achieve self-sustaining capability (which IS within the bounds of current & emerging technologies), I would consider that to be a profound accomplishment. Humankind, as we know it, finally is no longer constrained to one planet.

Again, perhaps we first need to learn to "crawl" before reaching for the stars.

Spook