25 Apr 07
Originally posted by PatzergrlYou can take it to the bank on one thing: Radio and visible astronomers are going to take a very hard look at Gileise581 from now on and in the coming decades, will have much better answers and probably visible images that will be able to even detect the presence of methane. If that happens, I am sure a drive would be on at that point to send a real probe.
Actually they found Krypton..we should warn them that their plant is about to explode
25 Apr 07
Originally posted by sonhouseI can see it now... "Alright, everyone is on 12 hours 7 days a week."
You can take it to the bank on one thing: Radio and visible astronomers are going to take a very hard look at Gileise581 from now on and in the coming decades, will have much better answers and probably visible images that will be able to even detect the presence of methane. If that happens, I am sure a drive would be on at that point to send a real probe.
🙂
Ok, ok, just a passing thought.
25 Apr 07
Originally posted by beatlemaniapeople like you made the same argument when the electron was discovered.
One thing I don't get is why do we spend billions of dollars searching for something that 99.9% most likely doesn't exist,when we could use all that money towards making life on the planet better? 😕
25 Apr 07
Originally posted by sonhouseHow long would a probe to the 'new world' take? 20.5 light years is farther away than grandma's house. Comms with the probe might be a bit tedious as well. Just asking....
You can take it to the bank on one thing: Radio and visible astronomers are going to take a very hard look at Gileise581 from now on and in the coming decades, will have much better answers and probably visible images that will be able to even detect the presence of methane. If that happens, I am sure a drive would be on at that point to send a real probe.
25 Apr 07
Originally posted by sonhouseAnd, one of those three stars, Proxima Centauri, is a red dwarf as well, as are 20 of the nearest 30 stars. So it would serve as an excellent practice field if we ever do want to go to Gliese 581 c or any of the others.
My bet would be on Alpha Centauri as an extremeley interesting place to look for life, if you go there, it is only a bit over 4 LY away and you get to look at THREE stars not one, the main star is a sister to the sun so it might have planets like here. Thats where I would place my bets on the nearest interstellar life.
25 Apr 07
Originally posted by jebrydzaginAs you know, it's not feasible with our current physics. But that doesn't mean some time in the future we will not be able to break the light speed barrier.
How long would a probe to the 'new world' take? 20.5 light years is farther away than grandma's house. Comms with the probe might be a bit tedious as well. Just asking....
I find it interesting that the universe exhibits 'design'. One of those designs is to keep warring people like ourselves from conquering other planet civilizations. Maybe by the time we figure out how to break the light speed barrier people like George Bush will no longer be in power.
26 Apr 07
Originally posted by ArrakisThat particular barrier is in no emminent danger I can assure you.
As you know, it's not feasible with our current physics. But that doesn't mean some time in the future we will not be able to break the light speed barrier.
I find it interesting that the universe exhibits 'design'. One of those designs is to keep warring people like ourselves from conquering other planet civilizations. Maybe by the time we figure out how to break the light speed barrier people like George Bush will no longer be in power.
The best we can hope for is a fusion or anti-matter rocket, which may get us up to 0.8 C or thereabouts. If we get that speed there will be significant time dilation so the crew at least would FEEL like they are going faster than the speed of light, because time slows down inside compared to outside so you as an individual flyer in such a craft can go apparently faster than light. So if you go out 20 LY, say you are close enough to C for you to make it there in 5 years on your own clock. But time for Earthers says it still took you 20 years to get there.
Better than nothing though. For the foreseeable future thats the best scenerio we can come up with. We may be forced to just live with it for the next thousand years. Of course the more we figure out about how the universe works some genius may come up with a loophole but don't hold your breath!
26 Apr 07
Originally posted by sonhouseIt would take a bit longer than 20 years, unless you are able to somehow get rid of inertia. With inertia, you need to slowly reach your top speed, and when you are halfway there, you need to slowly slow your speed. Failing this, you are smashed on the walls of your craft.
That particular barrier is in no emminent danger I can assure you.
The best we can hope for is a fusion or anti-matter rocket, which may get us up to 0.8 C or thereabouts. If we get that speed there will be significant time dilation so the crew at least would FEEL like they are going faster than the speed of light, because time slows down inside compared t ...[text shortened]... bout how the universe works some genius may come up with a loophole but don't hold your breath!
P-
26 Apr 07
Originally posted by PhlabibitIf you can accelerate at one G the time to get near C is about one year. If you do one G for the whole trip you will spend most of the time at a good time dilation rate, and for you the trip would take, say 10 years or 5 years depending on the average velocity. But very close to C taking one year and then decelerating for one year means you spend 18 years (earth time) at max time dilation so that would be a significant reduction in your personal time for the trip. You would feel you had exceeded the speed of light. Earth would have a differant opinion of course.
It would take a bit longer than 20 years, unless you are able to somehow get rid of inertia. With inertia, you need to slowly reach your top speed, and when you are halfway there, you need to slowly slow your speed. Failing this, you are smashed on the walls of your craft.
P-
26 Apr 07
Originally posted by ArrakisI think I'd bank on that. In fact, by the time we figure out how to break the light speed barrier (if it's even possible... Einstein said it isn't), people would say "George who?"
I find it interesting that the universe exhibits 'design'. One of those designs is to keep warring people like ourselves from conquering other planet civilizations. Maybe by the time we figure out how to break the light speed barrier people like George Bush will no longer be in power.
Originally posted by sonhouseYou're forgetting evolution. If life was to spring into existence or arrive on this planet fro elsewhere and it did have water/oxygen and the correct temperature, evolution would take care of the rest. Life has adapted to exist pretty much all oer this planet. On the edge of volcanoes, on glaciers, at the bottom of the ocean with no light, etc... A bit of radiation wouldn't be the end of the story by any means.
One problem with that scenerio, those red dwarf's are not so placid as you might think given their small energy output.
A planet with liquid water would have to be a LOT closer to that star than our sun, say ten times closer or more. Sticking with the ten times number, it is about 10 million miles away from that star. Ok, then the problem is coronal disch the constant battle twixt the two. I think a good writer can run with it. What do you think?
Life, once it exists, is almost impossible to destroy. I'm not sure if you're aware of the story of Earth bacteria landing on the moon?...
Source: http://science.nasa.gov/newhome/headlines/ast01sep98_1.htm
Space historians will recall that the journey to the stars has more than one life form on its passenger list: the names of a dozen Apollo astronauts who walked on the moon and one inadvertent stowaway, a common bacteria, Streptococcus mitis, the only known survivor of unprotected space travel. As Marshall astronomers and biologists met recently to discuss biological limits to life on Earth, the question of how an Earth bacteria could survive in a vacuum without nutrients, water and radiation protection was less speculative than might first be imagined. A little more than a month before the forthcoming millennium celebration, NASA will mark without fanfare the thirty year anniversary of documenting a microbe's first successful journey from Earth.
Apollo 12 remembered
In 1991, as Apollo 12 Commander Pete Conrad reviewed the transcripts of his conversations relayed from the moon back to Earth, the significance of the only known microbial survivor of harsh interplanetary travel struck him as profound:
"I always thought the most significant thing that we ever found on the whole Moon was that little bacteria who came back and lived and nobody ever said [anything] about it."
As soon as the bacteria made it into the right conditions, it sprang back to life as if nothing had ever happened. As you mentioned, this planet would be subjected to a lot of radiation, but single celled organisms are so resilient it would only be a matter of time before they evolved to adjust to their environment. If life does exist on this planet, it will have adapted to it's environment.
EDIT: ANother quote...
The 50-100 organisms survived launch, space vacuum, 3 years of radiation exposure, deep-freeze at an average temperature of only 20 degrees above absolute zero, and no nutrient, water or energy source. (The United States landed 5 Surveyors on the Moon; Surveyor 3 was the only one of the Surveyors visited by any of the six Apollo landings. No other life forms were found in soil samples retrieved by the Apollo missions or by two Soviet unmanned sampling missions, although amino acids - not necessarily of biological origin - were found in soil retrieved by the Apollo astronauts.)