| |
Main
Date: 30 Nov 2006 09:47:38
From: Rich
Subject: And they won't get there with chemical rockets from the 1960s
|
http://edition.cnn.com/2006/TECH/space/11/30/space.hawking.reut/index.html
|
|
| |
Date: 30 Nov 2006 12:59:06
From: Richard F.L.R.Snashall
Subject: Re: And they won't get there with chemical rockets from the 1960s
|
Rich wrote:
> http://edition.cnn.com/2006/TECH/space/11/30/space.hawking.reut/index.html
>
Wonder what amount of the rocket mass would be expended
getting it up to speed...
|
| |
Date: 01 Dec 2006 15:21:38
From: Rich
Subject: Re: And they won't get there with chemical rockets from the 1960s
|
Richard F.L.R.Snashall wrote:
> Rich wrote:
> > http://edition.cnn.com/2006/TECH/space/11/30/space.hawking.reut/index.html
> >
>
> Wonder what amount of the rocket mass would be expended
> getting it up to speed...
4000 tons into orbit, no big deal for a REAL spacecraft and almost no
mass expenditure.
But you have to use the RIGHT design.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Orion_%28nuclear_propulsion%29
|
| |
Date: 01 Dec 2006 14:06:27
From:
Subject: Re: And they won't get there with chemical rockets from the 1960s
|
Richard F.L.R.Snashall wrote:
> Rich wrote:
> > http://edition.cnn.com/2006/TECH/space/11/30/space.hawking.reut/index.html
> Wonder what amount of the rocket mass would be expended
> getting it up to speed...
Yes. I have to agree that if the human race manages to survive, cooped
up on the one planet Earth, until such time as it can design a
spacecraft using antimatter as its fuel, so as to reach Alpha Centauri
in six years...
then the urgency of expanding into space to ensure human survival is
rather low.
I agree with Dr. Hawking's basic sentiments, however: the survival of
humanity _is_ in jeopardy as long as we remain on one planet, and that
is a reason for establishing communities in space. However, in terms of
meeting *this* need, we will have to make do with Mars colonies or
O'Neill habitats.
This is not to say that going to the stars isn't also a good thing to
do when the time comes. But to have the *ability* to launch a venture
on such a scale, we will first have had to have inhabited the Solar
System!
John Savard
|
| |
Date: 04 Dec 2006 02:08:05
From: KLM
Subject: Re: And they won't get there with chemical rockets from the 1960s
|
jsavard@ecn.ab.ca wrote:
> Richard F.L.R.Snashall wrote:
> > Rich wrote:
>
> > > http://edition.cnn.com/2006/TECH/space/11/30/space.hawking.reut/index.html
>
> > Wonder what amount of the rocket mass would be expended
> > getting it up to speed...
>
> Yes. I have to agree that if the human race manages to survive, cooped
> up on the one planet Earth, until such time as it can design a
> spacecraft using antimatter as its fuel, so as to reach Alpha Centauri
> in six years...
>
> then the urgency of expanding into space to ensure human survival is
> rather low.
>
> I agree with Dr. Hawking's basic sentiments, however: the survival of
> humanity _is_ in jeopardy as long as we remain on one planet, and that
> is a reason for establishing communities in space. However, in terms of
> meeting *this* need, we will have to make do with Mars colonies or
> O'Neill habitats.
>
I assume you read Carl Jastrow eons ago. Confronting the vastness
of space is no simple task. It will require major adjustments hardly
envisioned today. Why send a biological entity when artificial
intelligence can do the job in forms which can cope with space.
klm
>
> This is not to say that going to the stars isn't also a good thing to
> do when the time comes. But to have the *ability* to launch a venture
> on such a scale, we will first have had to have inhabited the Solar
> System!
>
> John Savard
|
|
