colonies in space

[MrManNo1]

Last I worked with them (2 years ago), they were pretty cost-restrictive. To get a high efficiency, they require carbon nanotubes, which, IIRC, are several hundred dollars per gram. I haven't really kept up with them that well since I worked on them, so I'm not really sure what the current specs on them were. In fact, I can barely remember anything specific from when I worked on them.

Frankly, ultracapacitors aren't really good at storing charges. They're extremely efficient at moving them, but they're not really capable of holding a reasonable one yet. They're good in conjunction with a battery for longer-term storage.

[Augustine2004]

My guess is that we will first have hotels and 'company towns' in space. They won't be permanent; people will stay no more than weeks. We could still evolve from that point, though.

To be sure, there may not be that much difference practically between space hotels and company towns. The latter would be for employees of manufacturing companies.

Who won't want a job that requires residence in a company town, though, especially one that affords views of Earth and the moon, though?

[Mark Little]

My guess is that we will first have hotels and 'company towns' in space. They won't be permanent; people will stay no more than weeks. We could still evolve from that point, though.

The problem as I see it is that the current space station has the promise of being the start of a tourism destination, but there is a lack of drive to expand on it.. It is sad that the Russians demonstrate more entrepreneurial flair in this than the US.

I would suspect that it probably would be be economically viable to add a small "guest module" to the existing space station, whereas it would probably not be viable to start from scratch.

It seems to me that the current official view is mostly that space is for "astronauts" only and reminds me of the view that Antarctica was only for "expeditioners" back when I was involved in that sort of thing about 30~40 years ago.

Space habitation will not get anywhere until it becomes a commodity and not a status symbol.

[franktalk]

The storage of energy could be as simple as moving water. It is my understanding that late at night the water that would flow over Niagara Falls is pumped to a holding pond. Then in the day when demand is high (for electricity) the water is returned to flow over the falls while the rest of the water goes through the generators. Not sure exactly how the water is diverted. But the idea is valid. It is stored as potential energy and it has no losses other than evaporation. If the system is closed then there would be no evaporation and the water could be used over and over.

Now on other planets the same idea can be used. Even if there is no water heavy things can be elevated as potential energy. Compressed air is another source.

The problem with our current space travel is we have to eject part of the ship out the back for us to travel. Eventually running out of things we can toss. Using solar winds is fine if you want to wait a long time.

We can avoid the problems with our current drive systems by understanding space (the fabric of space) better. If we can bend space and place the space that is front of us behind us then we may travel at very high speeds and avoid the problems with acceleration. If we can not avoid the effects of acceleration in the ship we are limited to low acceleration or our bodies die.

I believe the next major advancement in space will come from the guys working on particle physics. Not the guys working at NASA.

It is my belief that quantum field theory is the right path. The problem is how do we manipulate the fields using other fields.

As for acceleration. our earth 9.8 m/sec2

At one earth gravity force it would take 234 days to get to the speed of light if one accelerated at 9.8 m/sec2. And of course it would take that long to slow down.

[Augustine2004]

The storage of energy could be as simple as moving water. It is my understanding that late at night the water that would flow over Niagara Falls is pumped to a holding pond. Then in the day when demand is high (for electricity) the water is returned to flow over the falls while the rest of the water goes through the generators. Not sure exactly how the water is diverted. But the idea is valid. It is stored as potential energy and it has no losses other than evaporation. If the system is closed then there would be no evaporation and the water could be used over and over.

Now on other planets the same idea can be used. Even if there is no water heavy things can be elevated as potential energy. Compressed air is another source.[/quote]Fountains in space communities used in conjunction with waterfalls . . .

At one earth gravity force it would take 234 days to get to the speed of light if one accelerated at 9.8 m/sec2. And of course it would take that long to slow down.

What theory are you using? As I understand, General Relativity still requires conversion of mattter into energy if you want such constant acceleration (what you feel if you are in a vehicle in space). Eventually you need to convert the entire matter in the universe to achieve near-light speeds. We have not yet an inkling of how to achieve Star Trek or Star Wars trans-light speeds.

[franktalk]

Augustine2004,

Ah a purest. If all things are ignored except the forces of acceleration then we could be on a ship that had constant acceleration at 9.8 m/sec^2. This would give us an artificial gravity we would need. Acceleration above that and our bodies can't take the forces. Less than that and our bodies atrophy. So unless we figure out artificial gravity we are bound by a small acceleration.

[Augustine2004]

Newton's theory is still a good approximation even now. Use Special Relativity only as necessary; General Relativity likewise. The GPS system was designed using General Relativity, for example. But let's use Newton's unless we really have to use SR or GR.

Look, I'm not shutting my mind from possibilities like what you keep on raising in this thread, but unless you have a good alternative to Newtonian theory, SR and GR . . . Yea, you did mention QFT, but QM is still good enough for now.

[franktalk]

Newton's theory is still a good approximation even now. Use Special Relativity only as necessary; General Relativity likewise. The GPS system was designed using General Relativity, for example. But let's use Newton's unless we really have to use SR or GR.

Look, I'm not shutting my mind from possibilities like what you keep on raising in this thread, but unless you have a good alternative to Newtonian theory, SR and GR . . . Yea, you did mention QFT, but QM is still good enough for now.

I don't think so. If it was we would already be at distant stars. Our current knowledge is not enough. That is my point. Somehow you may feel that the tool box we have already is enough. We just need to use those same tools differently. I say no, we need more tools and more understanding that we don't have now.

Let us say we take on the project of interstellar travel. We have to build a ship with many tons of supplies. And of course fuel. Enough to accelerate, slow down, accelerate and then slow down again at a minimum. We can't carry enough fuel to supply an artificial gravity so we design a ship that spins which will supply the force of a simulated gravity. The ship must be designed to allow for either a rotation of the living quarters during acceleration and deceleration or two separate living quarters. At a quarter light speed it would take 16 years to reach the closest star. And of course 16 years back. Storage over that amount of time is a problem. So the ship must have lab equipment and carry raw materials to make what ever is necessary on the trip. The time frame is so long that a next generation must be considered on the trip. Then facilities must be made for all of that as well. All of this is doable but the cost is outrageous.

If we were to do this then there is a big risk that man will develop some new technology while the ship is on route which makes the trip worthless. I would not want to be on that ship. I would be betting against technology.

[Augustine2004]

You seem to think that we should wait until someone comes up with a theory better than GR and QM. No–use them now. That will spur new technology, which in turn can be adapted to better test theories. Even if we don’t come up with a better theory, at least we will have higher technology.

[franktalk]

You seem to think that we should wait until someone comes up with a theory better than GR and QM. No–use them now. That will spur new technology, which in turn can be adapted to better test theories. Even if we don’t come up with a better theory, at least we will have higher technology.

You sound like Obama. Let us make gas so expensive that everyone will be forced to use alternative energy. The only problem is the world's economy will collapse in the process. But hay, why should we worry about that. If our goal is alternative energy we should not care about other meaningless consequences.

The desire to go to distant stars is there. The cost is too high. I see no problem with waiting. I say place the funds into research instead of an inefficient space project.

[Augustine2004]

One reason I started the thread is to discuss the feasibility of space/oceanic communities.

I still suspect you have not read the Heppenheimer book.

[franktalk]

One reason I started the thread is to discuss the feasibility of space/oceanic communities.

I still suspect you have not read the Heppenheimer book.

There are many books I have not read. But my statements stand on their own. After looking over the current state of space travel I believe that we would be better served to spend our time on research and not trips to space with old technology. If we look at all we have gathered (information) from our trips it could have been gathered much quicker with a new technology. Since the US and the world does not an infinite budget I think we should concentrate where we would get the best bang for the buck.

Early on in the space program many dollars were being spent reducing the size of the electronics. This money lead directly to microcircuits which we enjoy today. This was money well spent. Now I don't see the same cost benefit with any of the current spending.

I do know that NASA has funded basic research into new drive systems. But these are small think tanks and are not the thrust of the program.

[Steviepinhead]

There are many books I have not read. But my statements stand on their own. After looking over the current state of space travel I believe that we would be better served to spend our time on research and not trips to space with old technology. If we look at all we have gathered (information) from our trips it could have been gathered much quicker with a new technology. Since the US and the world does not an infinite budget I think we should concentrate where we would get the best bang for the buck.

Early on in the space program many dollars were being spent reducing the size of the electronics. This money lead directly to microcircuits which we enjoy today.

The past tense of "lead" (in this verb sense, not the noun sense of the heavy metal) is "led." I make this pedantic point only because you have indicated you are working on a book.

This was money well spent. Now I don't see the same cost benefit with any of the current spending.

I do know that NASA has funded basic research into new drive systems. But these are small think tanks and are not the thrust of the program.

To play fair, though, I will note the neat little pun you led up to in your last paragraph.

[Augustine2004]

Early on in the space program many dollars were being spent reducing the size of the electronics. This money lead directly to microcircuits which we enjoy today. This was money well spent. Now I don't see the same cost benefit with any of the current spending.

I don't know what you mean. Anyway, a guy says it's a myth NASA had anything to do with microcircuits directly.
http://movementarian.com/2006/09/11/...id-not-invent/
NASA could be said to have increased the demand for small electronics, I suppose, but I do believe the microcircuit would have enventuated anyway, NASA or no NASA.

I don't have much time to go through the H. book and see where it needs to be updated. I do wish Franktalk would have more solid stuff upon which to pontificate.

[franktalk]

The past tense of "lead" (in this verb sense, not the noun sense of the heavy metal) is "led." I make this pedantic point only because you have indicated you are working on a book.

To play fair, though, I will note the neat little pun you led up to in your last paragraph.

I have made that mistake so many times before. I normally change the sentence if I catch it. Like: There are many books that I have not had a chance to read.

Knowing how loose I play with words I have to have someone else read over my work. But these posts are the rough side of my language skills. I am not sure if I can make it better. I am almost sixty and many of these traits are fixed for sure.