Newtonian ships or not?.

[geoschmo]

I suspect that it's less a problem with being outside of the reach of earth's magnetosphere and more of a problem of being exposed to those nasty things that the magnetosphere normally protects us from. There are types of radiation out there that our little aluminium foil space ships don't protect us from very well. We will probably find ways to shield agaisnt it, but it's not easy.

As far as the Lunar astronauts medical records being classified, I wouldn't be so quick to ascribe it to conspiracy theories. Medical records are personal information afterall. It's bad enough those guys couldn't take a pee for years without filling out a report in triplicate listing the quantity, temperature and color. Would you want all that info turned over to the kooks and curiosity seekers if you were an astonaut or one of his family members?

[Baron Munchausen]

It's not that their medical records are private, it's that the reason we stopped going to the moon is classified. Don't misattribute my reasoning.

It's true that we don't have to be dependent on the magnetic field of the earth in a 'positive' sense. It could indeed be what it shields us from, but the effect is the same. We are dependent on the earth until (and unless) we can understand what happens to people who leave. It might not be as simple as putting shielding on starships. The current concept of 'shielding' is to keep the radiation levels down below what would be considered 'dangerous' but NOT on duplicating the ambient level of radiation at the surface of the earth. Is it really certain that high(er) levels of radiation for weeks or years won't have serious effects on people? Just because people who live at high altitudes get marginally higher radiation than those of us at sea level, or people who work at nuclear facilities get occasionally higher doses, don't immediately crack up and get put in the loony bin doesn't mean that the completely different radiation outside the earth's magnetic field -- or possibly the lack of the usual types of radiation that we experience here on earth -- might do very surprising things to our biology that could higher mental functions. Especially over the weeks and months and years of interplanetary travel. People at high altitude or working at nuclear facilities are still within the earth's normal environment, they just get some 'extra' radiaton on top of the usual ambient stuff.

[ March 28, 2004, 02:29: Message edited by: Baron Munchausen ]

[geoschmo]

Originally posted by Baron Munchausen:
It's not that their medical records are private, it's that the reason we stopped going to the moon is classified. Don't misattribute my reasoning.

Didn't mean to offend you. However, even though you did not say specifically their medical records were classified, you do seem to be trying to make a point that somehow the lack of access to their records is a sign that some goverment coverup is going on. Instead of it merely being standard privacy concerns. Your medical records aren't public record Baron, but we don't try to make that evidence of some nefarious plot on your part.

As far as the reason for later Moon missons being cancled actually being classified instead of the budgetary issues that are well known and easily confirmable, the only evidence we have is your assertion that someone you believe to work for NASA made comments to this effect on a forum somewhere. We have no way of knowing these people even work for Nasa, or that if they do work for Nasa they would neccesarily be privy to such information.

So we have a conspiracy. One large enough to be at least partially known to your mysterious Nasa buddies, but that has otherwise been succesfully kept secret all these years.

Sure, it's possible. It's also possible that we never really went to the moon and it was all faked to begin with.

Originally posted by Baron Munchausen:
It's true that we don't have to be dependent on the magnetic field of the earth in a 'positive' sense. It could indeed be what it shields us from, but the effect is the same.

The effect is the same, but the solutions are much, much different. Obviously I don't know which it is. I was just hypothesising that it's more likely that the damage is attributable to an excess of the wrong kinds or radiation then it is a lack of the right kinds. If I am wrong and it's a need for "Gaia rays" then it will probably be much more difficult to leave our planet then if it's just a matter of shielding us from "Zeta rays", that is true.

[ March 28, 2004, 03:35: Message edited by: geoschmo ]

[Baron Munchausen]

Again you misattribute my reasoning. I 'seem to be making the point' that the reason for the missions ending is classified. It is in fact known that most of the astronauts had psychiatric problems after their missions. There was even some speculation that John Glenn would have had his past problems used against him if he had been successful in his run for the presidential nomination. No need for 'conspiracy theories' about this when it's public information. No need for access to their medical records. And the fact that the reason for the end of the Moon missions is classified might not be all that difficult to verify. Often times the government will admit that something is classified. I have not done any research on it. I am simply speculating with fragmentary known information. Making the connection that the (possibly) 'classified' reason is or is not in fact some medical effect from space travel will have to wait until the reason is declassified or space travel beyond orbit becomes routine enough to show that there are no serious side-effects.

[ March 28, 2004, 04:16: Message edited by: Baron Munchausen ]

[PvK]

Originally posted by geoschmo:
... Actually there's not much difference in this case. If is his basic assumtion is correct, that a new colony could send a new colony ship in 100 years, and additionally we assume that it takes an average of 100 years for the each colony ship to reach it's new home, we could colonize the entire galaxy in less then 4000 years.

Huh? Reversing your math, 4000 years, with 100 year stops at each system, and 100 years between systems, is 200 years per system expansion. 4000 / 200 = 20 systems wide, the galaxy. Sounds more like an SE4 quadrant than a galaxy, to me.

That's about the length of recorded human history. But even if he meant it would take 100,000 years, considering the age of the galaxy we should be seeing someone out there. So either we are alone, or they don't want us to know they are there, or it's a lot harder then we think to get around out there.
...

Or they aren't doing anything that we have been able to observe, not necessarily because they care if we know about it, or not. The EM broadcasts we scan for may be obsolete, muffled, or undiscovered for all other intelligent life that we are in the correct time/space position to observe.

PvK

[geoschmo]

Originally posted by PvK:
Huh? Reversing your math, 4000 years, with 100 year stops at each system, and 100 years between systems, is 200 years per system expansion. 4000 / 200 = 20 systems wide, the galaxy. Sounds more like an SE4 quadrant than a galaxy, to me.

No, no, that's only true if we use "proportions". Your number is only correct if the new colonies never make colony ships and only the homeworld is producing new colonies at the rate of 1 every 200 years. With the colony ships makign new colonies in turn the growth goes up exponentially.

It does appear I had a couple small errors in computation. You are right it would be new colonies every 200 years, not every 100 years. I think I had another error somewhere that I am not sure of cause I didn't write all my work down. When I figure it now with all the assumptions I get that it would actually take 15,000 years, not 4,000 years to colonize the entire galaxy. But by point is still valid because compared to the age of the galaxy and the history of our own civilization, that's a drop in the bucket.

2 on year 400
4 on year 800
8 on year 1200
16 on year 1600
32 on year 2000

1024 on year 4000

32,768 on year 6000

1,048,576 on year 8000
...

At this rate of growth you pass 200 billion sometime around year 15,000. Of course this number is modified up or down by some significant factors. First of all, even if there are 200 billion stars, it's unlikely that all of them have habitable planets. So that will decrease the time needed for complete galactic colonization.

On the other hand, I must concede it would likely take longer because of one major factor. As the colonized territory got larger, the systems in the interior would be unable to efficently send out new colony ships. Available planets would be farther from them then the assumptive 100 year trip time would allow for. Of course that is an average figure and it's assumed that some trips would take less time, so it balances out to a degree. But once you reach the point where it takes multiple centuries for your core systems to send clony ships I would expect that those would stop and only teh colonies on the periphary would continue expanding. This would cause the overall rate of expansion to drop. By what ammount I don't know. The math get's a little over my head at that point.

Originally posted by PvK:
Or they aren't doing anything that we have been able to observe, not necessarily because they care if we know about it, or not.

I believe I suggested that p[ossibility as well in my Posts. Maybe not the Last one, but definetly somewhere in this thread I said something along those lines.

[JurijD]

No, GEO, I mean a COUPLE 100.000 years.

I didn´t do the math as you did because there are some serious limitations to your exponent-theory.

I just assumed our galaxy to be 100.000 light years across and since if you jup from one star to the next you must go in a straight line from one end to the other...

you cannot SIMPLY say: we got 1 star now and in 100 years we'll have 2 then 4 then 8... etc. etc
It doesn't multipy like that because you must take into acount that colonists won´t be leaving from your first star anymore (and if they do they won+t get to the colony "much" sooner than those from your secondary colonies... making the whole thing pointless).

Think about it geo you´ll see there is a big logical error in your exponent-calculation.

So you really have to think in terms of a "virtual ship" traveling from one part of the galaxy to the other. the real question is: how long would it take for this virtual ship to cross the galaxy if it took "pit" stops every 10 light years for 100 years each stop... the answer is: 100.000light years/10 light years = 10.000 stops

10.000 stops*100 years/stop= 1.000.000 years ... or in other words "a couple 100.000 years" since we are not exactly at one edge of the galaxy. (and I didn´t take into account the travel time between the stars.. only the stops of 100 years)

If we are traveling at SUB-LIGHT speads we should be able to clonize the galaxy in a couple 100.000 years.

To see how very wrong your 4000 years estimate is ... just try to explain to yourself how we are supposed to reach the other edge of our galaxy (some 60.000 light years away) in 4000 years if our colony ships are traveling at 1 ligt year per year at most (not taking into account that they are stopping at planets for 100-200 years) The colony expansion is NOT exponent in nature.. it is very much LINEAR. Just imagine it as a circle that grows from our solar system outward. Get it?


but anyway you tweek the numbers...any race that is acpable of developing some sort of anti-matter driven space ships (for the low mass/fuel ratios) and genetically modify its population so it can travle in space for several decades would be able to colonize the galaxy in roughly 1.000.000 to 10.000.000 years... which is still nothing to the WAST eones passed.

[ March 28, 2004, 13:11: Message edited by: JurijD ]