The Astronomy Thread

Sad to do this but Mudcrush you are going on ignore. All you do is neg shit without any feedback or reason.
I don't really care either way but since you offer nothing in exchange for your retardation, I thought I would tell you why before I never see your shit again.

Also don't forget that path lengths contract at high tau, so you can make a 1000 light year journey in less than 1000 years shiptime. It also makes big distances not take much more time than fairly close distances as long as you can continue accelerating to the halfway point.

Alot of very big technical hurdles to get over to do that though. Like hitting a rock at that speed is like tsar bomba.

Oldbased said:

Sad to do this but Mudcrush you are going on ignore. All you do is neg shit without any feedback or reason.
I don't really care either way but since you offer nothing in exchange for your retardation, I thought I would tell you why before I never see your shit again.

Click to expand...

Another one bites the dust.

Kharzette said:

Also don't forget that path lengths contract at high tau, so you can make a 1000 light year journey in less than 1000 years shiptime. It also makes big distances not take much more time than fairly close distances as long as you can continue accelerating to the halfway point.

Alot of very big technical hurdles to get over to do that though. Like hitting a rock at that speed is like tsar bomba.

Click to expand...

The amount of energy needed to get to such a velocity is higher than you think.

Kharzette said:

Also don't forget that path lengths contract at high tau, so you can make a 1000 light year journey in less than 1000 years shiptime. It also makes big distances not take much more time than fairly close distances as long as you can continue accelerating to the halfway point.

Alot of very big technical hurdles to get over to do that though. Like hitting a rock at that speed is like tsar bomba.

Click to expand...

That movie Passengers ( newer one ) had the most convincing shield system I've seen yet. It even fails on larger things obviously but for space dust and smaller rocks, I think it could be done

Big Phoenix said:

Man that movie rustled my jimmies. It had the chance to be good with a nice little twist at the end but nope, dumbass happy ending.

Click to expand...

I still bought it on sale for $5 for 4k version.
Probably have had it playing 20 times over the year as background noise. It's got like 3 people for 99% of the movie and neat effects and I like 2 of the 3 actors and the other I've seen her butthole. What's not to love.

I kinda like the rev space idea of stacking ice a few miles thick on the front shaped like a needle. Maybe if you found a big ass lead rich asteroid you could dope the ice with lead. Maybe some kind of way to crystalize it with lead embedded the way they do for silicon ingots with germanium.

I hope someone gets to try it all out someday. I'm curious what it would be like moving at that speed. Would the single hydrogen atoms per cubic meter be enough to blast the ice away in (relative) minutes? Would the background radiation just go through and fry everything?

The biggest problem with rare earth metals is you have to process a lot of material just to get a tiny bit of the REM and it is very polluting/toxic. If you could process them on the moon, people wont give a shit about pollution (initially anyways).

Bringing water into space from Earth is inefficient. If you can get it on site on the moon, then it not only makes habitation possible but also drastically reduces the costs of further deep space launches in theory.

Cybsled said:

The biggest problem with rare earth metals is you have to process a lot of material just to get a tiny bit of the REM and it is very polluting/toxic. If you could process them on the moon, people wont give a shit about pollution (initially anyways).

Bringing water into space from Earth is inefficient. If you can get it on site on the moon, then it not only makes habitation possible but also drastically reduces the costs of further deep space launches in theory.

Click to expand...

Plus, as diverse as our minerals are, I still feel there is all sorts of shit we don't exists. When Earth was forming up, many elements may have been so heavy or light to have been deep in the core for example. Much of the shit we have now like gold mostly came from after the fact or by plate movement forcing it up and then back down mountains due to weight and water. Some unobtanium would be a good reason to really kickstart space mining and then I could get on my rusty space freighter and never have to give a shit about this planet again. Just smoking cigars, listening to shitty music and eating crappy food hoping some TransXenoAlien boards me.

Cybsled said:

The biggest problem with rare earth metals is you have to process a lot of material just to get a tiny bit of the REM and it is very polluting/toxic. If you could process them on the moon, people wont give a shit about pollution (initially anyways).

Bringing water into space from Earth is inefficient. If you can get it on site on the moon, then it not only makes habitation possible but also drastically reduces the costs of further deep space launches in theory.

Click to expand...

Bringing it from Earth, or mining it in space, it depends on cheap access to space to really make it efficient. Fortunately SpaceX is making serious progress at this.

Ukerric said:

I want my space elevator.

Click to expand...

You always see black and white docking but never cool color when they dock.
Dragon firing up thrusters. Also what Mudlovers Assfeet asshole looks like after his boyfriend gets done with the nightly therapy session.

Mudcrush Durtfeet said:

Rare Earth elements aren't actually particularly rare and can be found in the US, it's just that they're expensive to actually seperate (and would be more so on the moon).

He3 for fusion reactors is not needed until we (some day) actually invent fusion reactors. That's been something like 30 years in the future for the last sixty years, so don't hold your breath.

How much water and how easy it is to mine on the moon, I don't know that one.

Click to expand...

I'm not really up to date with fusion and fission, but isn't fusion not that effective ? I remember reading somewhere that the inner core of the sun, where the pressure and temperature is high enough for the fusion to take place, only produce something like 300 w per cubic meter.
Or we are using something else ?