Interstellar or Interplanetary? by Galfridus

GENERAL DISCUSSIONS

Interstellar or Interplanetary?

POSTED BY: GALFRIDUS
UPDATED: Saturday, February 22, 2003 01:02
SHORT URL:
VIEWED: 16216
PAGE 2 of 2

Friday, February 21, 2003 3:40 AM

Noocyte:

Thanks for your kind words, but please, my head is fat enough as it is

Agree wholeheartedly about NASA, but remember MASA is a product of our own democratically elected government. I am afraid that we who want "out to the black" are a minority, and other spending concerns have priority. It is something that we are going to have to do ourselves without relying on government's help. Fortunately, all research that NASA does falls into the public domain, so their efforts are freely available.

Right now we need a propulsion system. And really that is it. We have enough technical knowhow to build everything else. (Power plant is a function of propulsion, and possibly the largest single power draw.) Life support, navigation, hull, everything else has been pretty well worked out.

Not so sure "Ghost of Jupiter" nebula is a likely candidate in and of itself for a lot of habitable planets. A planetary nebula is formed by a star "sluffing off" its outer layers of gas, either just prior to, or during a nova. Anything within about 10 light years of a nova stands a good chance of being sterilized. Perhaps, this is simply the largest or main feature of this region of space.

Hmmm, 1400 light years away, and the year is 2517? That is almost 3 light years per year we'd have to cover just to get there. We better start cracking.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, February 21, 2003 7:47 AM

HAPLO721

Y'know, it's entirely possible that we developed FTL drive, but it's so hideously expensive that the only ones ever developed were used for the ships that transported us to our new home. After that, it's all sublight.

Also, re: the Ghost of Jupiter, it's possible that the "terraforming" referred to in the intro is more than just taking an existing planet and making it habitable, but creating planets from scratch out of existing materials.

Early: You ever been raped, Kaylee?
Kaylee: You know, it's funny you should mention that... ever heard of the Fox network?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, February 21, 2003 10:24 AM

FARADAY

Quote:
This is the front cover of a trifold map included in the press kit for the show. You'll notice that it says "NGC 3242" on it. Googling "NGC 3242" quickly shows that it's the "Ghost of Jupiter" planetary nebula, approximately 1,400 light-years from Earth.

Does the map actually have any info about the layout of the planets inside it? I know that won't answer the "stellar system or galaxy" question by itself, but it might shed some interesting light.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, February 21, 2003 11:11 AM

SELNYC

Quote:
Originally posted by Haplo721:
Y'know, it's entirely possible that we developed FTL drive, but it's so hideously expensive that the only ones ever developed were used for the ships that transported us to our new home. After that, it's all sublight.

This could make sense. The use of FTL within a solar system would be tricky; the distances are not far enough away to justify it's use and there could be serious repercussions if you did -- doesn't the mass of something at light speed approach infinity?

Quote:
Also, re: the Ghost of Jupiter, it's possible that the "terraforming" referred to in the intro is more than just taking an existing planet and making it habitable, but creating planets from scratch out of existing materials.

If we were sure the sun wasn't going nova, going to a nebula could also make sense; you'd use those elements, gaseous and otherwise, floating in space to build planets, perhaps ala Star Trek Genesis Project type methods...

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, February 21, 2003 11:19 AM

HAPLO721

Well, a planetary nebula is formed WHEN a star goes nova, so I suppose we figured "If it's blown once already, it'll be a while before it does again."

I've contacted 2 different people who have the press kit. Both are willing to scan the map, blueprints, and other materials, but one has no scanner and the other has a le-se one. Both are going to ask friends to use theirs.

Early: You ever been raped, Kaylee?
Kaylee: You know, it's funny you should mention that... ever heard of the Fox network?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, February 21, 2003 11:21 AM

HAPLO721

BTW:

That's the nebula in question.

It's 1,400 light-years away, and 0.6 light-years across.

Early: You ever been raped, Kaylee?
Kaylee: You know, it's funny you should mention that... ever heard of the Fox network?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, February 22, 2003 12:17 AM

DRAKON

Haplo721 wrote:Friday, February 21, 2003 07:47 Y'know, it's entirely possible that we developed FTL drive, but it's so hideously expensive that the only ones ever developed were used for the ships that transported us to our new home. After that, it's all sublight.

Also, re: the Ghost of Jupiter, it's possible that the "terraforming" referred to in the intro is more than just taking an existing planet and making it habitable, but creating planets from scratch out of existing materials.

Ya know. Two very good points. Heck, only nit I got against it is that expensive in terms of energy requirements, rather than money. Which is probably what you meant anyway.

"Couldn't let us make a profit. Wouldn't be civilized."

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, February 22, 2003 12:59 AM

DRAKON

"doesn't the mass of something at light speed approach infinity?"

I was kinda hoping not to be asked this, as this is one of the more technical and "counter-intuitive" (i.e. confusing) things about General Relativity.

Space and time cannot be seen or measured directly. And because of that, there is no way to measure any kind of absolute velocity. If you want to figure out where you are, or how fast you are going, you have to have a reference point. And that reference point may be sitting still or moving, with relation to, or "relative" to, any number of other objects.

Each object traveling on its own, not being affected by outside forces, is travelling inertially. This inertial travel establishes a "frame" by which we can measure velocity, acceleration and mass. But if you change the velocity, you change the frame, and this messes with your measurement of mass.

We are all familiar with how length contracts in the direction of motion, how time slows down, and how mass increases as an object travels closer to the speed of light. What is usually ignored, is that a person on such a ship would not notice anything different. It is only with respect to an outside observer, one not traveling at the same velocity as the ship that such issues come into play. From the outside, as you look at the ship speeding past, it may look like a very heavy pancake, whose clocks are running slow(er than yours). But to a guy on that ship, it looks completely normal. As a matter of fact, if he looks at you, he sees your clock has slowed down, you are remarkably thinner, and more massive.

Now this has dealt with inertial mass. And Relativity says that inertial mass and gravitational mass are the same. (Gravitational mass being the cause or source of the gravitational field) Relativity says that Mass and Energy are equavilent, but that Energy is another of those frame dependent measurements. It depends on how fast your reference point is travelling.

Ya with me so far?

In other words, the curvature of space and time causes the effects we call gravity. This curvature is dependent on the total amount of mass and energy in the area. The measure of both mass and energy are dependent on what "intertial frame" you are using, how fast your reference point is going. One can swap frames by running through the formulas.

There is one thing that makes this not that big a deal. In order to displace a planet, or other body, you have to do work, which is exert a force over a period of time. The force of gravity is an inverse square law, it gets 4 times as weak if the distance is 2 times as far. So it works out that a slow moving light object has as much effect as a fast moving heavy one, because of this little fact. The faster object does not spend as much time close to the planet to deflect it as much.

If this is as clear as mud, I can try again. You can take that as a threat if you like, I can be quite boring on the subject.

"Couldn't let us make a profit. Wouldn't be civilized"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, February 22, 2003 1:02 AM

DRAKON

Not quite. You get such a nebula prior to a nova as well. Look at Eta Carina, which hasn't yet, but looks damn pretty puffing out a sky the way it does.

But in this case, if the central star is already a white dwarf, it looks pretty safe

"Couldn't let us make a profit. Wouldn't be civilized"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

YOUR OPTIONS

SHARE THREAD

NEW POSTS TODAY

USER	POST DATE

USER

POST DATE