Space war with China? - Page 3

Tystnad · 12-05-2003, 05:40 PM

[quote:2c718]What happens when your ship starts moving. You wouldnt remain stationary[/quote:2c718]

Ever heard of a nice little invention called "Seatbelt"?

But yeah, you could be right aswell..
Im no genious when it comes to physics..

TGB! · 12-05-2003, 05:50 PM

Even with a seatbelt. You'd still suffer the effects of inertia.

pest · 12-05-2003, 05:57 PM

^^The fairy dressed as zorro is right.

A couple more observations:

* NASA has had a manned mission ot mars planned for years.

* There will be no moon settlements for a very long time. Definately not in our lifetime.

* Atomic rockets would never, ever, ever, ever be allowed to be launched - environmental disaster waiting to happen.

* I think it would be cool to go back to the moon. If for nothing else, to shut up the conspiracy theorists.

* I too, am getting weary of how everyting turns anti-US. Even in threads where canadians rag on france, it turns anti US. And for the record, the americans here handle the negative posts better than any other nationality here, with the possible exceptions of the Brits and Aussies.

ninty · 12-05-2003, 06:15 PM

Well, you do realise that when your in space "floating" you're going 17,000 miles an hour in orbit? I don't see anyone on the ISS being pushed against walls or having to wear seatbelts. I'm telling you its not an issue.

The reason you seem to experience gravity in space is because there is extremely little gravitational pull being exerted on your body because you are far enough away from any planet not be pulled in or attracted to it. Therefore no matter what speed you travel at, inertia does not matter.

Atomic rockets could be used, however a large amount of radiation shielding would be required. The rockets would not use Uranim or Plutonium because it would requre too much of the material and wuldn't be feasible. Instead we would use Americium which would have to be processed since it isn't natural, but would require a much less amount of.

Has this thread turned into anti-US? I don't think so. If I ahve offended any Americans, I am sorry. I think I can still disagree with things the US does and not be anti-US. I don't agree with Bush wanting to go to the moon, and I expressed that. I don't think thats anti-US. I may have been a little abrupt in the way I went about it, and for that I also apologise, but I still stand by what I said. I am not anti-anything.

12-05-2003, 06:16 PM

Simos right , inercia has something to do with it. Artificial Gravity is made that way , I think MIR even used it. Not sure on that one though.

They have been planning the exploration and manned landings on Mars for at least a decade. Hell thats why they sent the rover.
The problem they were having before (outside of funding of corse) was it takes 3 years to get there. No one has ever been in space for that long , you figure anouther 3 to get back and you are talking about the very likley possibillity of severe illness or death from those who go.

Now like you said , they are developing beter and faster ways to get there. That should make the project work much better. Hopefully those propoltion systems will be used in the next 20 years.

12-05-2003, 06:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 1080jibber

the US never set foot on the moon, and the china mission will prove it

that would be great

ninty · 12-05-2003, 06:24 PM

Hold the phone. I thin I made somewhat of a mistake.

Inertia would be present in the acceleration stage. However, once at a crusing speed inertia would no longer be a threat. (Duh, on my part. That is the definition of Inertia oOo: )

Therefore, a gradual speed up would be required to the maximun speed of the ship, and once there a gradual slow down would also be required.

We have the same problem on earth. If they wanted to build a train that uses a vacuum to propel the train, a gradual speed up and slow down would be required. However at the trains crusing speed, everything would be OK. Now to factor in or out gravity, i'm not sure of the effects. You might have to ask Einstein about that, but I think he had trouble relating the universe to inertia.

I'll have to get onto that once I finish with relativity.

TGB! · 12-05-2003, 06:38 PM

First, I'm not Simo or whoever. I laugh at interweb detectives.

Second, inertia defined by Newtons Laws is the property of an object to resist channge in its motion. In laymans terms, you get something moving, its going to keep moving until something acts against it. In most cases, that thing is friction. All this isnt important though when we're looking at a ship in space moving at obscene speeds. Your body, is still moving at the ridiculous amount of speed, and without gravity (such as that on Earth) you're fucked. Now even if we did have artificial gravity, we'd still have things to worry about. What an inertial dampner would so is cut the mass of this huge object so that itd be like you driving in a fast car (low inertia) compared to a megaton shutle (high inertia).

And if we built a train in a a vacuum and let it go, just pushing on it would set it off thered be no gradual built up and you WOULDNT be able to slow it down unless you wanted to get on the other side of it.

Oh, and an object in orbit is still affected by the pull of gravity. Youll notice when shuttles break out of orbit, they slow down, since their INERTIA is such that they dont need thrusters. So yes right now we are spinning at an incredible speed, but gravity hooks us up there.

Theres an incredibly longer answer I could give but I'd have to break out the old physics book from highschool but the simple answer is this - to achieve and maintain high speeds, you would need both something to reduce the inertia of the object you are traveling in, and some artificial gravity to make that ride smooth.

pest · 12-05-2003, 06:44 PM

^^Yep ninty, i was going to say that, you beat me to it. Its not the speed, its the acelleration and deceleration that get create g-forces greater than mans body can survive. The internal organs cant handle it, even strapped into a seat. Off the top of my head the limit is something like 15-20 g's??

edit - There is no reason you cant travel at obscene speeds if you get there gradually.

ninty · 12-05-2003, 06:56 PM

The whole train in a vacuum thing held the point that in order to achieve top speed, it would have to gradually speed up using different sections of the tunnel that are closed off to the vacuum to gain speed, then once at the right speed, entered into the vacuum and achieving its top speed.

And i'm not going to argue over the definition of inertia, because you just stated it and there would be no point to that.

Yes the shuttle when in orbit is affected by gravity. Thats what keeps it in orbit. If there was no gravity, there would be no orbit. However the further away you go, the less gravity. If someone stands on a mountain and someone at sea level, the weight of the person at the mountain will be less.

Anyway bottom line is I think its very possible to travel to mars alpha centauri or other stars at or near the speed of light.

TGB! · 12-05-2003, 07:05 PM

Here's the problem though, and this IS where inertia comes in big time. To keep yourself in shape, you'd ONLY be able to travel in a striaght line. If you changed direction, inertia (resistance to change) would come in and no matter how strapped in you were in your body would suffer from a sharp turn (unseen asteroid, or other body of mass). So large changes would be neccesary, but again would this be feasable. Probably not.

ninty · 12-05-2003, 07:14 PM

Yeah I understand what your saying. Valid point.

1080jibber · 12-05-2003, 07:17 PM

i dont know what you nerds are bitching about, but is kind of useless since the US never set foot on the moon.

biggrin: trys to start a flame war biggrin:

ninty · 12-05-2003, 07:24 PM

I watched a show a few weeks ago where it said Kennedy hired Stanley Kubrick to create a fake lunar landing. Aparently they did. There was a photo of stanley kubrick on the floor of the moons surface, whcih was a set somewhere. So I don't doubt that that did happen. Also kennedy recorded a video of him saying the astronauts wern't able to get home and are stuck or died. I don't doubt that either. I've seen lots of people cite different reasons that they didn't land on the moon, but I believe they did.

And what we were talking about didn't really ahve all that much to do with the moon.

Madmartagen · 12-05-2003, 07:25 PM

[quote="The Gay Blade!":5fed2]First, I'm not Simo or whoever. I laugh at interweb detectives.

Second, inertia defined by Newtons Laws is the property of an object to resist channge in its motion. In laymans terms, you get something moving, its going to keep moving until something acts against it. In most cases, that thing is friction. All this isnt important though when we're looking at a ship in space moving at obscene speeds. Your body, is still moving at the ridiculous amount of speed, and without gravity (such as that on Earth) you're fucked. Now even if we did have artificial gravity, we'd still have things to worry about. What an inertial dampner would so is cut the mass of this huge object so that itd be like you driving in a fast car (low inertia) compared to a megaton shutle (high inertia).

And if we built a train in a a vacuum and let it go, just pushing on it would set it off thered be no gradual built up and you WOULDNT be able to slow it down unless you wanted to get on the other side of it.

Oh, and an object in orbit is still affected by the pull of gravity. Youll notice when shuttles break out of orbit, they slow down, since their INERTIA is such that they dont need thrusters. So yes right now we are spinning at an incredible speed, but gravity hooks us up there.

Theres an incredibly longer answer I could give but I'd have to break out the old physics book from highschool but the simple answer is this - to achieve and maintain high speeds, you would need both something to reduce the inertia of the object you are traveling in, and some artificial gravity to make that ride smooth.[/quote:5fed2]

bullshit biggrin: