How far into space will man reach?

I cant remember where i read it by apparently theres a star system about 20 light years away and it has 3 earth like planets with one of them being very close to earth and due to its almost exact same distance from the sun as we are could defenetly be habitable.

Again sorry i cant remember where i read this but scientists are speculating that it could have the same climate as earth back in the jurrassic/dinosaur era,

So maybe if we develop some sort of power source like fusion we could get there and colonise it and it could essentially be the new earth.

I cant remember where i read it by apparently theres a star system about 20 light years away and it has 3 earth like planets with one of them being very close to earth and due to its almost exact same distance from the sun as we are could defenetly be habitable.

Again sorry i cant remember where i read this but scientists are speculating that it could have the same climate as earth back in the jurrassic/dinosaur era,

So maybe if we develop some sort of power source like fusion we could get there and colonise it and it could essentially be the new earth.

sonofsmeagle

Here

:P this sounds awesome though! 20 light years isn't that far away.

As far as our imagination will take us.

Are you kidding me? Astronauts go through brutal training and anyone with a passion for what they are doing would kill to be the first man on Mars. Trust me, they will know what they would be getting into and would be prepared for brutal living conditions. Both physically and mentally

Pikdum

:| yeah because that is exactly what I mean when it comes to "problems", a simple complaint that can't handle it.. Not a serious mechanical failure, freak accident, weather problem etc etc that may occur leaving them stranded.. In every space exploration with manned aircrafts that have been done, each and every one could abort and go straight back.. While Mars you can not.. After that supposed 30 day window you claim, they are stuck there for a year and a half at least.. In which they can not turn around, they have to be completely self sufficent.. You have shown absolutely no evidence what so ever that we have the technology to sustain a mission for that long in being able to get food water.. Enough for them to eat.. To do so is we would have to develope a self sustaining environment in which the astronauts can grow their own food.. That has yet to happen.

Lets not even think about the numerous physchological problems involved in the mission, where a handful of people are going to be dealing with just themselves for over 2 years straight..

[QUOTE="Pikdum"]

Are you kidding me? Astronauts go through brutal training and anyone with a passion for what they are doing would kill to be the first man on Mars. Trust me, they will know what they would be getting into and would be prepared for brutal living conditions. Both physically and mentally

sSubZerOo

:| yeah because that is exactly what I mean when it comes to "problems", a simple complaint that can't handle it.. Not a serious mechanical failure, freak accident, weather problem etc etc that may occur leaving them stranded.. In every space exploration with manned aircrafts that have been done, each and every one could abort and go straight back.. While Mars you can not.. After that supposed 30 day window you claim, they are stuck there for a year and a half at least.. In which they can not turn around, they have to be completely self sufficent.. You have shown absolutely no evidence what so ever that we have the technology to sustain a mission for that long in being able to get food water.. Enough for them to eat.. To do so is we would have to develope a self sustaining environment in which the astronauts can grow their own food.. That has yet to happen.

Lets not even think about the numerous physchological problems involved in the mission, where a handful of people are going to be dealing with just themselves for over 2 years straight..

durring the apollo landing the president had an alternate speech written in the event the astronauts couldnt make it off the surface. this was 8 years. only 8 years after the first man went into space. we sent foot on another solar object. they all knew the dangers. they all accept the dangers. if those ascent engines didnt fire to get those astronauts off the moon. they were stuck. there was no abort there. so there is a documented case of a no abort manned mission scenario which you claim do not exist.

also look up soyuz 1. the man got into the craft saying he wont make it out alive. with 203 known structural problems. he got in anyway. the parachutes never opened. the solar panels didnt deploy either. massive control issues. he got in KNOWING about these problems. lets not mention apollo 13. they were very close to dying. but thanks to the extreme engineering ingenuity of everyone involved the problem was fixed.

please read up on the history of human space flight. psych effects? again trained professionals. these arent random people pulled off the street to go into space. they are the best of the best.

they dont NEED to grow the food. they can take it with. i dont understand how that is so hard to understand. it would can be sent ahead of time even. we dont pack bear minimums either. we have redundant systems incase of failure.

also the longest stay in space was 437 days. so sustained life is possible. all that needs to be done is have the food sent with the astronauts. not a hard concept. you severely underestimated out spaceflight capabilities

Not far at all. I'm not as confident as most people with what we will achieve with technology. It would take a near infinite amount of energy to get any relatively mass heavy object (spaceship w/astronauts) to move at or near the speed of light, and that won't get us far. Let's not forget we can't go past the speed of light and just thinking we can without any substantial theories or knowledge of breaking such barrier is unreasonably optimistic.

We will bend the enitre universe to our will.

Mwahahaha...

It's obvious man is going to walk on Mars in our lifetime but how far into space do you think man can travel in the oh let's say next 1 million years(if we exist that long)? I think at least we'll be able to reach a close star within some thousand years, at least if we can build somespaceship with ecosystem.but I think after that I don't know, I don't have great imagination about this. What you think?

charlesdarwin55

If we ever obtain technology that lets us get close to the speed of light, then we'll thoroughly explore our solar system. And...that's about as far as we'll ever go.

With speeds closer to what we have now, we'll probably eventually have men walking on Mars. MAYBE eventually having a coupld of dudes checking out Europa. And...that's about it.

Over a span of a million years, I don't really expect us to even be driving cars or using electricity. I suspect that we're eventually going to start going "backwards", and will live in a "primitive" state for most of our species' existance.

As others have said, the possibility to going to Mars is in our lifetime. The probability however, is being hindered by red tape and greedy politicians of the day.

PunishedOne

I'd also like to add the opinion that, as of now, there is no NEED to send humans to Mars.

So far, robots seem to be doing just fine.

Keep sending robots until there's a NEED to send actual humans, because humans are a lot more costly, take a lot more resources to keep going. And if humans don't come back alive, it's a national tragedy that could kill funding for space exploration. Send robots until robots don't cut it. And right now, robots are doing just fine.

Red Tape and Greedy Politicians aside, I'd likely be opposed to sending humans to Mars (at the present time) because I don't like the idea of sending astronauts on a suicide mission, and because I don't like spending exorbitant costs to keep astronauts alive for that amount of time when what we're setting ought to discover can be learned by robots instead.

Give me a REASON why astronauts have to risk their lives when we can send robots instead, and I'll be all for sending humans to mars. Give me some realistic discoveries that the humans are expected to discover that COULDN'T be found out by robots, and I'll sign a petition to send humans to Mars. But in a cost/benefit analysis, sending humans to Mars just plain potentially costs a LOT, with the benefits not being particularly better than simply sending robots. Wanna spend more money on space exploration? Then spend more money on designing space robots that are better at doing human tasks.

I figure we could probably do anything in one million years, considering how quickly we've been advancing in technology.

IDK but I hope we don't run into Megatron... I hear he's pretty grouchy :P

It's obvious there will be a real Doctor Who in our lifetime.

In seriousness, who knows? It's been 40 years since the moon landing, imagine what another 40 years will do.

We won't make it past Mars because of conflicts inside Earth itself.

i can see possibly maybe getting humans on mars but as the one poster said whats the point? what will we get there? the satisfaction of a USA flag on mars? honestly whats the whole point. its expensive costly and risky. yes astronauts go through intense training but this is a lot different. its a lot easier to rescue mission a moon mission gone wrong than oh crap mars mission failed. dont worry help is 2 years away! further more whats the point? we cant break the speed of light? unless we can do that then mars is it folks its the last point were going in this solar system.

the next big giant 4 planets past mars are unlandable. you have to go from earth to moon to mars then leapfrog past 4 giant planets with an insane amount of moons and maybe land on pluto. ok getting there is going to require some light speed. its also going to require ability to sustain life aka grow your own plants. if you cant get light speed your going to have to basically say ok you 4 families mate with each other have kids and keep going and oh ya do what no other pair of humans can do not kill each other(perhaps the biggest obstacle).

then on top of that we have to not lose signal with these folks which we dont know how far our signal can go. lets face it practically speaking mars is it. its the end of the space frontier unless we can break the speed of light which means breaking some very basic laws of physics. and oh yes lets not forget how do we fuel this thing too.i hate to use sci fi horror movies in space but theres little to stop the crew from after 100 years killing each other. seriously here lets be honest with each other on that one you cant guarantee this.

there seem to be far too many obstacles that say no your stuck on earth deal with it. just because we think there is a livable planet 20 light years away means nothing. we cant get there. and in order to do this we need to prove humans can get to mars and back safely. sure we could create a base on mars....but ultimately whos going to do this? and why? to land on pluto our next "base"? then what? i mean i need to know more than oh ya lets go past mars and uhm...im not sure just keep going. thats a huge leap frog. a huge one. bottom line is we could MAYBE get to mars past there its just plain and simple not do able.

EDIT: i just checked that 20 light years link its only 200 000 years away...oh ya were leaving this solar system to find life. /sarcasm

Soon as we find the nearest mass relay we'll be solid.fidosim

Ah yes, "mass relays" we have dismissed the claim.

We'll all be extinct before we get too far.

We'll all be extinct before we get too far.

ExGabu

It's obvious man is going to walk on Mars in our lifetime

charlesdarwin55

not even that is clear, the space science is now going backwards as they stopped the space shuttles. The only possible way to go to mars with the technology nowdays is if you do rockets with a nuclear reactor in it like we see it in submarines, but i dont know if people would like that if such machines would fly around in space and come back to earth since whats happening in japan.

[QUOTE="fidosim"]Soon as we find the nearest mass relay we'll be solid.Sagem28

Ah yes, "mass relays" we have dismissed the claim.

[QUOTE="blackacidevil96"]

[QUOTE="sSubZerOo"]

We do not have the technology.. Looking past the immense amount of resources that will be consumed to even get there due to food and water for 200 days.. The crew can not make the journey back once they get there.. The reason being Mars and Earth are on different orbital times.. They will have to wait for another year at least to havea feasible distance to get back.. We would have to develope a completely independent expediention.. The distance alone is already a immense problem, add in the fact a crew has to be completely independent and can not just turn around if alittle problem occurs.

sSubZerOo

it is ENTIRELY budget reasons. we could get it done within 15 years with proper funding. we DO have the technology. I would infact consider my self a credible source on these matters.

Ok please point them out.. Because A) Vaste distance that will stretch the fuel significantly.. B) 200 days at least in which a crew of some number will be eating, drinking and using resources.. This is before they even get to the planet.. C) Landing on a planet that has never been done before in a man made object.. Have to take into account that a dust storm may completely prevent their window of ever returning.. Leading them to starving to death... D) They have to wait well over a year for Mars and the Earth are nearest again to make the voyage back... Leading to another 200 days at least.. E) Absolutely NO chance of aborting the mission, once your on it there is no turning back.. This is completely unlike our Lunar landings..

There are numerous other problems that can occur from this.. There is no way in hell we will get there in 15 years time.. I have not ever seen a estimate of that.. The only estimate I have seen is 2050 and I find that doubtful.

I thought it would be interesting to point out the flaws in this.

A) Did you ever do physics? Vaste distances in space do not require vaste amounts of fuel, because there is no lose of momentum in space... :roll:

B) The longest a human has been in space so far is over 400 days....

C) Like all space missions, there is a degree of risk... Dust storms and what not should be accounted for by scientists. Im sure they can come up with a solution...

D) Once again this is more to do with funding. As long as the astronauts have some way to exercise, eat, drink, and breath, they could survive almost indefinitly... Sure it would be boring, but isn't all astronaut work...

E) There is a chance to abort the mission. Slingshot yourself around Mars back to Earth if your close enough, or just turn around. Rockets can turn you know....

You do realise that if the US government and other goverments invested the same amount of money into the space program ever since they landed on the moon as they did before they had, we could actually be living on the moon by now?...

[QUOTE="charlesdarwin55"]

It's obvious man is going to walk on Mars in our lifetime

HFkami

not even that is clear, the space science is now going backwards as they stopped the space shuttles. The only possible way to go to mars with the technology nowdays is if you do rockets with a nuclear reactor in it like we see it in submarines, but i dont know if people would like that if such machines would fly around in space and come back to earth since whats happening in japan.

Why not. There aren't earthquakes and tsunamis in space? And besides, sailors have been doing it for 50+ years...

[QUOTE="sSubZerOo"]

This just isn't gonna work, the moon has low gravity.. Your going to see adverse health effects on people that intend to stay there for a long time.

Pikdum

Yes, this is actually a problem scientists are looking into. Low gravity has an effect over ones bone mass, it causes it to decay in a sense. However this can be countered by daily exercise with weights wrapped around you (such as running a treadmill or weightlifting). Its not completely effective but it makes a difference until a better solution is found.

Actually, scientists remarked that on one of the returns from the space station, the astronauts were actually in better physical condition (ie: more muscle, less fat etc) than before they left... Go figure... :roll:

[QUOTE="sSubZerOo"]

[QUOTE="Pikdum"]

Are you kidding me? Astronauts go through brutal training and anyone with a passion for what they are doing would kill to be the first man on Mars. Trust me, they will know what they would be getting into and would be prepared for brutal living conditions. Both physically and mentally

blackacidevil96

:| yeah because that is exactly what I mean when it comes to "problems", a simple complaint that can't handle it.. Not a serious mechanical failure, freak accident, weather problem etc etc that may occur leaving them stranded.. In every space exploration with manned aircrafts that have been done, each and every one could abort and go straight back.. While Mars you can not.. After that supposed 30 day window you claim, they are stuck there for a year and a half at least.. In which they can not turn around, they have to be completely self sufficent.. You have shown absolutely no evidence what so ever that we have the technology to sustain a mission for that long in being able to get food water.. Enough for them to eat.. To do so is we would have to develope a self sustaining environment in which the astronauts can grow their own food.. That has yet to happen.

Lets not even think about the numerous physchological problems involved in the mission, where a handful of people are going to be dealing with just themselves for over 2 years straight..

durring the apollo landing the president had an alternate speech written in the event the astronauts couldnt make it off the surface. this was 8 years. only 8 years after the first man went into space. we sent foot on another solar object. they all knew the dangers. they all accept the dangers. if those ascent engines didnt fire to get those astronauts off the moon. they were stuck. there was no abort there. so there is a documented case of a no abort manned mission scenario which you claim do not exist.

also look up soyuz 1. the man got into the craft saying he wont make it out alive. with 203 known structural problems. he got in anyway. the parachutes never opened. the solar panels didnt deploy either. massive control issues. he got in KNOWING about these problems. lets not mention apollo 13. they were very close to dying. but thanks to the extreme engineering ingenuity of everyone involved the problem was fixed.

please read up on the history of human space flight. psych effects? again trained professionals. these arent random people pulled off the street to go into space. they are the best of the best.

they dont NEED to grow the food. they can take it with. i dont understand how that is so hard to understand. it would can be sent ahead of time even. we dont pack bear minimums either. we have redundant systems incase of failure.

also the longest stay in space was 437 days. so sustained life is possible. all that needs to be done is have the food sent with the astronauts. not a hard concept. you severely underestimated out spaceflight capabilities

[QUOTE="blackacidevil96"]

[QUOTE="sSubZerOo"]

:| yeah because that is exactly what I mean when it comes to "problems", a simple complaint that can't handle it.. Not a serious mechanical failure, freak accident, weather problem etc etc that may occur leaving them stranded.. In every space exploration with manned aircrafts that have been done, each and every one could abort and go straight back.. While Mars you can not.. After that supposed 30 day window you claim, they are stuck there for a year and a half at least.. In which they can not turn around, they have to be completely self sufficent.. You have shown absolutely no evidence what so ever that we have the technology to sustain a mission for that long in being able to get food water.. Enough for them to eat.. To do so is we would have to develope a self sustaining environment in which the astronauts can grow their own food.. That has yet to happen.

Lets not even think about the numerous physchological problems involved in the mission, where a handful of people are going to be dealing with just themselves for over 2 years straight..

dog_dirt

durring the apollo landing the president had an alternate speech written in the event the astronauts couldnt make it off the surface. this was 8 years. only 8 years after the first man went into space. we sent foot on another solar object. they all knew the dangers. they all accept the dangers. if those ascent engines didnt fire to get those astronauts off the moon. they were stuck. there was no abort there. so there is a documented case of a no abort manned mission scenario which you claim do not exist.

also look up soyuz 1. the man got into the craft saying he wont make it out alive. with 203 known structural problems. he got in anyway. the parachutes never opened. the solar panels didnt deploy either. massive control issues. he got in KNOWING about these problems. lets not mention apollo 13. they were very close to dying. but thanks to the extreme engineering ingenuity of everyone involved the problem was fixed.

please read up on the history of human space flight. psych effects? again trained professionals. these arent random people pulled off the street to go into space. they are the best of the best.

they dont NEED to grow the food. they can take it with. i dont understand how that is so hard to understand. it would can be sent ahead of time even. we dont pack bear minimums either. we have redundant systems incase of failure.

also the longest stay in space was 437 days. so sustained life is possible. all that needs to be done is have the food sent with the astronauts. not a hard concept. you severely underestimated out spaceflight capabilities

They wouldn't be lounging around on beach towels trying to get the perfect tan...

Oh, and we can grow food in space....

A still more glorious dawn awaits. Not a sunrise, but a galaxy-rise, filled with 400 million stars.Acemaster27

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zSgiXGELjbc

:)

Not very far if we keep wasting billions on idiotic things...

Without the earth's gravitational pull humans will not last very long in space or even on the moon. Someone who goes on a long moon mission you don't want to pat them on the back! You will break it.

I dunno but it's a shame we won't get out of the galaxy in our life time. BigBoss255

I hope you mean Solar System. We may very well never make it out of our galaxy. Its a joke considering it right now. Maybe very very far in the future when humanity is evolved to a greater extent.

[QUOTE="BigBoss255"]I dunno but it's a shame we won't get out of the galaxy in our life time. Pikdum

I hope you mean Solar System. We may very well never make it out of our galaxy. Its a joke considering it right now. Maybe very very far in the future when humanity is evolved to a greater extent.

If our civilization could build a space ship that could travel 99% the speed of light travel would take a long time relative to the people on earth but for the individuals traveling it wouldn't take as long as some would believe. I learned in school that a round trip to vega with this fictional space ship would be 50 years earth time, but it would only be 2 years for the individuals on board the ship, vega is 27 light years away, have keep theory of relativity in mind. Some scientists predict that anti matter/matter propulsion could accelerate a ship up to 90% the speed of light however as of right now there is no way to harness that power. I'm just saying this because the possibility is there, the technology is not though. It's just fun to think about.

Only about 5 minutes away, then realise he forgot to lock the front door and have to g oall the way back...

probably the closest livable planet.

If not, im pretty sure we are going to die out, considering the fabulous job we did at keeping this planet healthy

Depends on whether or not FTL speeds are attainable.

Depends on whether or not FTL speeds are attainable.

foxhound_fox

interesting stuff...

http://www.futuretimeline.net/the-far-future.htm

Faster than light is a impossibility.. The only thing we have seen with the force beyond FTL speeds is a black hole.. Furthermore when you go at close to faster than light.. Time slows.. So some one walking forward in the ship going at the speed of light, doesn't break the speed limit.. At light speeds, everything slows down by half.. Meaning a year of travel in the ship really is 2 years of travel outside the ship.sSubZerOo

interesting stuff...

http://www.futuretimeline.net/the-far-future.htm

comp_atkins

pretty awesome

espeically > Sweden becomes the first oil-free country

[QUOTE="foxhound_fox"]

Depends on whether or not FTL speeds are attainable.

sSubZerOo

Man didn't even go anywhere past the Earth's atmosphere yet... don't believe everything you see on TV.BubbaTheHubba