Staredit Network

Staredit Network -> Lite Discussion -> Space Age Near...
Report, edit, etc...Posted by TheDaddy0420 on 2005-12-14 at 03:05:35
QUOTE(Sie_Sayoka @ Dec 12 2005, 04:36 PM)
I LOVE SCIENCE FICTION!
anyway how the hell would algae create oxygen?! oxygen is a pure substance i would understand if mars atmosphere has co2 or something but algae cannot simply create oxygen.

yeah... well we would have to get the oxygen from some other place like an asteroid, comet or the water on mars. i also think that it would be pretty stupid to create a living atmosphere  there... u know how cold it is?!
[right][snapback]377498[/snapback][/right]


CO2 goes into algae, O2 comes out. Its just what they do o.O

QUOTE(MindArchon @ Dec 13 2005, 08:14 PM)
I believe Mars only has water under the polar caps. True, trees and plants have plenty of CO2, but they need water, and I dont think there is enough to sastify them.
[right][snapback]378459[/snapback][/right]


Hence we use Algae cause I heard some where that they can survive like no other, its wierd I got to do some research.
Report, edit, etc...Posted by Lithium on 2005-12-14 at 04:02:35
and one explanation to it
if we are able to create a living atmosphere there we are also able to put carbon dioxide of course that would create a greenzone effect which traps heat inside it.

haven't you learned? all plants need CO2 to live. It's a part of chemi-reaction. They breath CO2, they have chemical reaction, they breath out oxygen, and we breath oxygen we eat food, we create energy, water, co2, and ammonia if its Protein.
Report, edit, etc...Posted by Shapechanger on 2005-12-14 at 08:15:59
Wormholes are still just a theory. Give me a source if you want to prove me wrong.
I'm not entirely sure what happen, but there was a time when everybody wanted to put a man on Mars. I'm not sure if it was 9/11 or something else, but their interest all moved elsewhere.
Report, edit, etc...Posted by Lithium on 2005-12-14 at 21:26:21
Yes, wormholes ARE theory,geeze. Wormholes are supposed to say the space is a paper. You fold the paper so that the ends of theirs are very close to each other, its a complicated stuff even humanity knows it exists or not.
Report, edit, etc...Posted by Sie_Sayoka on 2005-12-14 at 23:52:35
actually a fabric but paper is basically the same thing. everything with mass bends the fabric. blackholes on the other hand actually make an ever sinking hole in the fabric. worm holes on the otherhand just put 2 places together making the journey very short.
Report, edit, etc...Posted by KrAzY on 2005-12-15 at 00:11:13
The wormhole can be a travel from space to space with no coming back to a very far distance or it's the death place.

I heard someone went their, and he had his torso and head survived. It can be aliens shooting his legs and then he came back or the wormhole ripped his legs off.
Report, edit, etc...Posted by Do-0dan on 2005-12-15 at 00:13:35
.......you're joking right?
Report, edit, etc...Posted by Sie_Sayoka on 2005-12-15 at 02:37:02
lol.... where did you get your information from?
Report, edit, etc...Posted by Lithium on 2005-12-16 at 17:48:35
it is possible that a wormhole may exist. I think highly yes but who could guess?
Report, edit, etc...Posted by Minority on 2005-12-17 at 02:03:37
We alredy have the technology to colonize Mars, just not the resources.

You send a giant ship to Mars, with about 1,000 peple on board (hydroponic crops for food and oxygen, water purifiers for water).
When you land on Mars, send more smaller ships to establish external colonies that are supplied by the main ship.
They then build new colonies using the recources on Mars, and begin a massive operation to make the martian air breathable by mining the gases out of rocks to make the atmosphere thicker (thus creating a greenhouse effect), and using plants to convert the massive amounts of CO2 into oxygen.

Mars will then be a completley livable planet.
Report, edit, etc...Posted by Sie_Sayoka on 2005-12-17 at 02:35:58
lol you know how big and advanced the mothership would have to be? it would need to be created in space. inside of it it will need to have big thrusters with fuel for earth and back, a docking port, and several cargo bays for the various equiptments.

our technology cannot build somehting this big. (it would have to be as big as a battlecruiser....)
Report, edit, etc...Posted by Minority on 2005-12-17 at 03:31:12
QUOTE(Sie_Sayoka @ Dec 17 2005, 06:05 PM)
lol you know how big and advanced the mothership would have to be? it would need to be created in space. inside of it it will need to have big thrusters with fuel for earth and back, a docking port, and several cargo bays for the various equiptments.

our technology cannot build somehting this big. (it would have to be as big as a battlecruiser....)
[right][snapback]381055[/snapback][/right]


Our technology can do that. You only need fuel for the trip there, the power can be provided with solar panels, nothing will dock to it, and all the equipment needed for the mothership's trip can be used on Mars to keep everyone alive (the mothership's only purpose is to supply the smaller colonies (which have the actual equipment) with food, air and personnel. The equipment will be sent after the mothership itself). We just don't have the recources.
Report, edit, etc...Posted by Lithium on 2005-12-17 at 04:35:41
projects like that would cost over a 10 trillion. Thats completely absurd and impossible. How the US will approach is first terraforming a planet, planting them on the polar section with the boiler to liquify the ice. We can put ammonia to the mars atmosphere, which creates a greenhouse effect to put the planet warm.

Plus, that kind of funds dont exist even on the world, accounting on...
Mixture of 1,000,000 Chemical Fuel. - about 125,000,000 dollars
Resource for the construction of the ship and the computers - about 200,000,000 dollars.
Research fee of the construction of the massive spacial construct - 200,000,000 dollars.
Long it will take - about 20 to 90000 years.

Plus Sie_Sayoka is technically right. We cant construct something THAT large and put it into space eithedr that or we cant construct something THAT large in space. Therefore we do not have the technology. There might be millions more technical problems that you cant even IMAGINE.

EDIT: one more thing, massive ships are incomplete because we won't be crashing into mars. Do you know how much fuel or how much big of a FAN it would take to land that kind of ship in mars? eventhough the escape velocity in mars is slower.

Mars's crust dont exactly release Carbon Dioxide so we also need to nuke the surface too, which is inprofitable, OR we could make a satellite microwave, launching thousands of satellites with 2.35GHz Microwave to boil the surface's frozen water molecule, it would warm the surface rather quicker.

What Minority talking about is Paraterraforming. Thats an ineffective way to produce an habitable planet because we dont even have the infancy of space technology. Mars already has frozen waterlines.
Report, edit, etc...Posted by Sie_Sayoka on 2005-12-17 at 05:41:44
yeah the largest thing we have built in space is the international space station... and that thing doesnt look very stable

QUOTE
When you land on Mars, send more smaller ships to establish external colonies that are supplied by the main ship.


and thats what the docking ports would be needed for. for emergency and shuttle craft
Report, edit, etc...Posted by Minority on 2005-12-20 at 01:31:24
QUOTE(Lithium @ Dec 17 2005, 08:05 PM)
projects like that would cost over a 10 trillion.
[right][snapback]381105[/snapback][/right]

QUOTE(Lithium @ Dec 17 2005, 08:05 PM)
Plus, that kind of funds dont exist even on the world, accounting on...
Mixture of 1,000,000 Chemical Fuel. - about 125,000,000 dollars
Resource for the construction of the ship and the computers - about 200,000,000 dollars.
Research fee of the construction of the massive spacial construct - 200,000,000 dollars.
[right][snapback]381105[/snapback][/right]


That has nothing to do with it. I said we have the technology, not the money. Pretend that we have infinite funds.

QUOTE(Lithium @ Dec 17 2005, 08:05 PM)
Long it will take - about 20 to 90000 years.
[right][snapback]381105[/snapback][/right]


Somehow, I don't think it will take 90,000 years.

QUOTE(Lithium @ Dec 17 2005, 08:05 PM)
What Minority talking about is Paraterraforming. Thats an ineffective way to produce an habitable planet because we dont even have the infancy of space technology. Mars already has frozen waterlines.
[right][snapback]381105[/snapback][/right]


Come on, we have at least the "infancy" of space technology. It's not like Ion Drives or laser transmissions were invented in a day.

QUOTE(Lithium @ Dec 17 2005, 08:05 PM)
Plus Sie_Sayoka is technically right. We cant construct something THAT large and put it into space eithedr that or we cant construct something THAT large in space. Therefore we do not have the technology. There might be millions more technical problems that you cant even IMAGINE.

EDIT: one more thing, massive ships are incomplete because we won't be crashing into mars. Do you know how much fuel or how much big of a FAN it would take to land that kind of ship in mars? eventhough the escape velocity in mars is slower.
[right][snapback]381105[/snapback][/right]


O.K., it doesn't have to be that big (make it 100 people). We can send in more afterwards.

QUOTE(Lithium @ Dec 17 2005, 08:05 PM)
Mars's crust dont exactly release Carbon Dioxide so we also need to nuke the surface too, which is inprofitable, OR we could make a satellite microwave, launching thousands of satellites with 2.35GHz Microwave to boil the surface's frozen water molecule, it would warm the surface rather quicker.
[right][snapback]381105[/snapback][/right]


I meant that we could melt the dry ice at the poles, then extract the gases from the rocks, bit by bit. Should've made it clearer, sorry.

I guess we could also bring some heavy gasses from Earth, too.

Report, edit, etc...Posted by Sie_Sayoka on 2005-12-20 at 02:51:32
taking huge quantities of gasses from earth isnt good..... nor is wasting fuel and money sending it to mars while you can just take it from asteroids and comets.
Report, edit, etc...Posted by Lithium on 2005-12-20 at 05:16:57
we dont have technologies either, a hundred people would still be a lot. even if mars has
the N of the gravity near same as the moon, it doesnt mean that ship wont fail and crack and crash and bang bada boom on the pole. You see? what we need is a Einstein Rosen Podolsky BRIDGE. I thought something say like we can produce a wormhole about the size that 6 or 10 atoms could go in. And no, you cant see 10 atoms with your eyes if i recall. You can see about 1000000000000 atoms in one place as the size of 500 nanometers.
Report, edit, etc...Posted by Sie_Sayoka on 2005-12-20 at 05:25:44
isnt 1 million atoms the edge of a paper?
Report, edit, etc...Posted by Shapechanger on 2005-12-20 at 16:45:03
QUOTE
yeah the largest thing we have built in space is the international space station... and that thing doesnt look very stable

Where have you been? It's extremely stable.
It would only be a something like a year or two, possibly three, to get to Mars.
No fuel needed, no solar panels, nothing.

ION DRIVES!!!
Report, edit, etc...Posted by Freedawk on 2005-12-20 at 16:59:10
I have a question about some places...Where is the Black Hole and how dangerous can it be? Does it realyl suck in objects and stuff?
Report, edit, etc...Posted by Shapechanger on 2005-12-20 at 17:16:07
Black holes are not 'holes' They are stars that have reached such a huge mass, they have become a gravity well. They suck in their own light, and anything else that passes by. Eventually they implode and become white dwarfs.
Report, edit, etc...Posted by Freedawk on 2005-12-20 at 17:21:26
Liek a vacuum, light cannot pass by it. All you see is pitch black, right?

Space Age will never coem in a while I think...Maybe a Billion years...
Report, edit, etc...Posted by Shapechanger on 2005-12-20 at 17:44:14
Erm...
Light goes through a vacuum....
Report, edit, etc...Posted by Sie_Sayoka on 2005-12-20 at 18:19:59
black holes slow down light. and the farther it gets in the black hole the more it is slowed. same thing goes with time. we do not understand black holes entirely.
if you were going 1 mph less than the speed of light and you were going right next to light.... the light beam would still be going the speed of light... freaky isnt it

anyway there is a fabric of space and time... or as einstein believed. everything with mass puts a little dent into that fabric. a black hole however has teared that fabric.

QUOTE
Where have you been? It's extremely stable.
It would only be a something like a year or two, possibly three, to get to Mars.
No fuel needed, no solar panels, nothing.


the space station cannot withstand a lot of punishment. say from asteroids and such. it is not very strong in structure and it recieves heavy damage from small sattelites. this to me seems unstable.
Report, edit, etc...Posted by Shapechanger on 2005-12-20 at 20:33:30
Time is an illusion. There is no time/space fabric as they are not related at all. A black hole doesn't tear anything, it's a simple thing that naturally happens. I don't know how or why you sci-fi freaks come up with all this 'time stream' and 'black hole' stuff.

Technically, it should be a Black Star....
Next Page (4)