Jump to content

trekkie_

Members
  • Content Count

    475
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

119 Excellent

About trekkie_

  • Rank
    Sr. Spacecraft Engineer

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. it's actually even easier to make it into a weapon, if you get it functional. all one would need is probably a handheld sized ship, fly it out into space a bit, then back toward earth like a rocket, releasing a blast of its radiation in the general direction of say, a city block or a country.
  2. I would assume that the drive is flawed to begin with, because the collisions along the way will probably pass through the bubble and hit you. You may be bending space, but it's still like ramming a brick wall into a car, along with other side effects like trapping the radiation inside the bubble with you. It may be possible to create some kind of space bending pattern to disperse the particles around you rather than into you. But people also think too big. There's no reason why we can't for example, stop and go rapidly to discharge build ups if that was indeed the case. You also would
  3. Any thoughts? Predictions, Impacts, and Comparisons to other countries welcome.
  4. All this talk of 2 stages.....and people seem to forget the space shuttle was a 2 stage craft. The first stage wasn't exactly reusable, but they did recollect the materials and remanufactured them, which was a decent savings since the metals were pretty much still purified and of generally the same mass. Much better than having to remanufacture them from new raw materials.
  5. That's why a large vehicle with all the tools to base build and a live-in crew cabin would be the optimal choice. And with nuclear power, there would be no issue of running it, since it would run for years, capable of building bases the whole time, or wherever is needed, while still being able to house a crew for the entire duration. So you could build two bases on two opposite ends of the moon without having to worry about traveling back and forth, if you wanted....while also exploring and doing science. Of course, you could create automated base building robots, but if they needed maint
  6. a lot of people that think they have synesthesia, don't actually have it. example: sound > shape. Well just about anyone can close their eyes, listen to some music, and imagine something like what you would see with a sound visualization plugin. REAL synesthesia has basically ONE reaction to something, involuntarily. So if the same of something doesn't trigger the same color/visual/etc over and over involuntarily, it's not synesthesia. So if you were to say listen to a song, close your eyes and see visuals, those visuals would be EXACTLY the same EVERY time you heard the song.
  7. I suspect all negative matter and energy, if exists, are long since pushed to the outer reaches of the universe...if there is such a thing as the outer reaches of the universe. sort of like a surfactant does to particles in water. The only place we could find some, would be rare places where it would be trapped because its surrounded on all sides by matter since its inception, which would effectively bottle it up. but that's a tall order, because the mass of its surroundings would have to be equal from all directions otherwise there would be an imbalance, allowing it to push and escape. an
  8. The main idea for a starter moon base is a large moving vehicle capable of housing several people. This way, you don't have to land a base and a rover to get around, since your base is your rover. This also cuts time by not having to drive back and forth between bases. That base, could even be utilized to help build other permanent bases out of moon materials, gather resources, etc. A moving base would also have the benefit of being able to avoid some incoming threats, and any re-supply landings won't have to be so precise since the base could move to the landing site. The only drawback i
  9. Even if non DNA life exists, it would still be a natural property of the physics of the universe, given the right conditions.
  10. I expect alien life to be similar in functions to earth life (even if they don't physically resemble earth life), especially if it is based near the same environment. That doesn't necessarily mean earth life of today, because a lot of things have long since died out that you could consider to be alien, and their evolutionary paths never bore any fruit for one reason or another. What we do know, is that earth life has developed naturally, under the physics of the universe. So it's safe to assume those same physics can cause similar life to appear elsewhere. Now, there are a lot of catches,
  11. Life exists because things like DNA synthesis is a natural property of the physics of the universe, under the right conditions at the right time that is. The idea that the universe somehow leans toward creating life to increase entropy, is flawed in every way. That almost gives the impression that the universe would literally be making decisions and acting accordingly. Just think about the impact of life on earth even to just our own solar system.....it's basically zero effect, over hundreds of millions of years. Meanwhile, during that same period of time, 'natural' entropy having nothing t
  12. I think a separate satellite based power transfer system would probably be better if weight savings was a concern. There's actually a lot of bloat when it comes to weight anyways though. For example, the shuttle reaches nowhere near all its structural limits...which means that's mass that is serving no purpose other than 'just in case' or for longevity. It costs what....$10,000 to put a pound of mass into earth orbit.....and we've probably put more than a pound worth of things like alcohol in orbit, adding unnecessary costs. There's also some waste in general when it comes to fuel. No booste
  13. What you think is stretched and compressed time, is gravity (and possibly space by proxy) acting upon the interactions of energy and matter. Time doesn't necessarily have to be tangible for actions to occur in the universe. Rather, time is just a concept derived from observing those actions.
  14. I think determining the size of one should be based on a factor of the average human height. Basically though, the smallest size possible that allows comfortable gravity simulation, but the further away from the center of the spin the better, to a point anyways. Ideally, 100% of earths gravity should always be the aim, but 80-90% would probably be a good compromise. RPM would be based on the size of the rotating structure and its distance from the center, so it's not a fixed number.
  15. even without a frame of reference, stuff still moves. just like light doesn't cease to exist just because you close your eyes. and I would deem the entire video to be relevant to anyone interested in why the universe may not be expanding at all.
×
×
  • Create New...