Max. G-Force

[ThomasR]

NASA
​

 

[Flyingdutchman]

WOW!!!!

This isn't easy reading after a few beers.

But it does bring up another question.
How do you navigate at the speed of light?

And what if you have a few of those "ships" flying around at those speeds; how does your TCAS work?
Hmm, I remember myself asking similar questions when flying a C-152 looking at a Piper Arrow..

Hehe,

Cheers buddy!

Check your PM..
---------

Heerlijk, helder, Heineken..

 

[bandit110]

Ok, I'm a tard, but if you are talking about acceleration and the imposed G-forces, how do they apply in space. If Gravity comes from a mass, what would hold the body back from accelerating without a strong gravity field pulling on it?

 

[ThomasR]

Ok, I'm a tard, but if you are talking about acceleration and the imposed G-forces, how do they apply in space. If Gravity comes from a mass, what would hold the body back from accelerating without a strong gravity field pulling on it?

Gravity and accelleration have the same effect. Once you stop thrust then you become weightless in open space. Speed is relative and separate from gravity or accelleration. Two objects traveling at 35,000 mph next to each other in space have 0 speed in relation to each other. The theory is, however, that one of the objects cannot move away from the other or toward the other faster than light speed (186,278 mps) without distorting time/space. Time space is the medium we all live and move in.

New research indicates that we might be able to traverse the time/space medium into an alternate dimention or parallell universe or out of this medium into some connected medium. String theories hold up this hypothesis plus provide answers to many more previously unexplainable events.

If you are interested in current research String Theories are the newest in physics. If any body can explain it I would be interested.

 

[ThomasR]

Objectives

The president set a series of objectives in space exploration. Here are some videos related to those objectives. I believe that if society is to live in peace it will not come as a result of government dictates or religious efforts but through the mutual interest and cooperation provided by science.

http://www.nasa.gov/multimedia/videogallery/index.html

I hope this thread never dies. If it does it means the very people who launched our imaginations into space have lost interest in their own profession. We are aviators, space science is our creation.

 

[bigD]

If you are interested in current research String Theories are the newest in physics. If any body can explain it I would be interested.

Explaining any kind of string or superstring theory is pretty well impossible via a message board. I can write words until I'm blue in the face, but the real beauty is in the math, and math can't really be conveyed here. If you don't already have a good background in field theory, go get one! Field theory is awesome, awesome, awesome, and at the moment, far more rooted in reality than string theory is. Here are some reading suggestions:

If you want a good overview of some of the cool things going on in modern physics without getting mired in advanced math, check out Fearful Symmetry by Anthony Zee. Very very good book, and I highly recommend it to anyone with an interest in physics.

If you feel pretty strong in math and want to learn the nuts and bolts about field theory, check out Quantum Field Theory in a Nutshell, also by Zee. This book is the real deal, and is in my mind the best *single* book written on fields. It's also a great springboard into strings, as he discusses how the concepts in the book (such as Kaluza-Klein compactification) laid the foundation for string theory.

If you're dying to get as comprehensive a look at Field Theory as you possibly can, you can do no better than Weinberg's The Quantum Theory of Fields. There are three volumes. At this point, you're hard core. It's incredibly deep and detailed, but you'll pay for the knowledge with countless late nights working through the material. Weinberg is something else. I took quantum mechanics from him in college, and he's simply on another playing field (which kinda made it hard to learn from him, but oh well). Fortunately, he writes better than he teaches in front of a chalkboard.

And finally, if you feel you have a good grasp of the Field Theory and want to jump into strings, I'd go with Polchinski's String Theory, Volumes 1 and 2. I've only worked with the first one, but I hear good things about the second one (superstring theory) as well. It's pretty interesting, although I haven't entirely bought into the theory yet. Your mileage may vary, however.

So there you go. Have fun with it!

 

[ThomasR]

bigD

Thanks, you are a gem. I get a bit confused spanning the gap between mathematics and physics; and then there are philosophical models that seem to have no explanation. Like you mentioned earlier, I have only a basic understanding of physics and most of what I know applies only to aerodynamic. However, aeronautics is the forrunner to astronautics and that is where my real interest is.

The president set a time line to reach Mars and many scientists believe the schedule is unreasonable. I was wondering what others might think of how well the U.S. is advancing in this field and what might be their opinions on how we will fare in developing an International Space Station.

Shuttle ..... Shuttle ..... Shuttle ..... Shuttle​

​

Landing​

​

​

Lunar Lander ..... lunar Lander ..... Lunar Lander​

​

​

Research Light Generated AirPower​

​

​

Laser Generated Aircraft​

​

Helios Solar Powered ..... Helios​

 

[ThomasR]

Lunar Mission Vid.

Apollo Landing

U.S. flag on the Moon ..... Salute the Flag

Lunar Module

Walk on the Moon ..... Jogging ..... Strolling ..... Falling ..... Dropping

Working ..... History

Rover


Moon Lift Off ..... Ascent .....

 

[garf12]

So what effect would traveling at the speed of light have on the HOBBS?

 

[ThomasR]

So what effect would traveling at the speed of light have on the HOBBS?

I think I might go backwards....

 

[ThomasR]

Anyone hear anything about S.E.T.I. receiving an unexplainbale signal from 1,000 light years out? I heard about it on the radio last night.


The California Institute for Physics and Astrophysics released a new research project called Zero Point Field. Something about an energy grid that links all matter instantly through the emply space at "absolute zero" that fills the universe.

 

[Juvat]

I did 9 Gs for 42 seconds in a centrifuge. My entire back and butt were one large purple bruise when I came out of there. Not fun. But hey, I didn't black out--woo hoo!

My point: if you're going to accelerate to the speed of light, you had better take your own sweet time. Anything over 2 Gs for 64 days (or whatever it was) would really blow goats.

 

[garf12]

Anyone hear anything about S.E.T.I. receiving an unexplainbale signal from 1,000 light years out? I heard about it on the radio last night.

Just found this...

A recent (September 1) article in New Scientist magazine, entitled “ Mysterious signals from 1000 light years away,” implies that the UC Berkeley SETI@home project has uncovered a very convincing candidate signal that might be the first strong evidence for extraterrestrial intelligence.

Alas, this story is misleading. According to Dan Werthimer, who heads up the UC Berkeley SERENDIP SETI project, this is a case of a reporter failing to understand the workings of their search. He says that misquotes and statements taken out of context give the impression that his team is exceptionally impressed with one of the many candidate signals, SHGb02+14a, uncovered using the popular SETI@home software. They are not.

This signal has been found twice by folks using the downloadable screen saver. That fact resulted in the UC Berkeley team putting it on their list of ‘best candidates’. Keep in mind that SETI@home produces 15 million signal reports each day. How can one possibly sort through this enormous flood of data to sift out signals that might be truly extraterrestrial, rather than merely noise artifacts or man-made interference?

The scheme used is simple in principle (although the technical details are complex): SETI@home data come from a receiver on the Arecibo radio telescope that is incessantly panning the sky, riding “piggyback” on other astronomical observations. Every few seconds, it sweeps another patch of celestial real estate, and records data covering many millions of frequency channels. Some of these data are then distributed for processing by the screen saver. By chance, the telescope will sweep the same sky patch every six months or so. If a signal is persistent – that is to say, it shows up more than once when the telescope is pointed at the same place, and at the same frequency (after correction for shifts due to the motion of the Earth) – then it becomes a candidate. Of course, being persistent doesn’t mean that the source is always on, only that it is found multiple times.

In February of this year, Werthimer and his colleagues took a list of two hundred of the best SETI@home candidate signals to Arecibo and deliberately targeted that mammoth antenna in the directions to which the scope was pointed when they were found. Once subjected to this closer inspection, all but one of these signals failed to show. That disqualifies them from being claimed as true detections of a persistent signal. The one that was found again, SHGb02+14a (the subject of the New Scientist article), will no doubt be observed yet again, but according to Paul Horowitz, who heads up the Harvard SETI efforts, the statistics of noise make it fairly likely that at least one of the candidates observed in February would reappear, even if all these signals were simply due to receiver fluctuations.

The article remarks on the strong drift of this signal, which it describes as puzzling. Of course, many terrestrial sources of interference, and in particular telecommunication satellites, show strong drifts due to changing Doppler effects as they wheel across the sky. (Incidentally, the technically inclined will want to note drift due to a planet rotating like Earth would be 0.15 Hz/sec, not the 1.5 Hz/sec mentioned in the magazine.) As for the distance of 1000 light-years claimed in the article’s title, there is clearly no evidence supporting this number, other than the lack of known nearby stars in the beam.

The bottom line is that an experiment like SETI@home always has a candidate list, a table of those signals that look most promising. Indeed, you can find the current versions of this list on their web site. However, there is a great deal of difference between a candidate, and a convincing signal. If any of the major SETI experiments being run by the SETI Institute, by the UC Berkeley group, the folks at Harvard, or the Australians or Italians, discovers a signal that they think is of extraterrestrial origin, they will immediately take steps to confirm this, both with their own scientists and with observers at other organizations. You will find information about it on their web sites, and in multiple media outlets.

Sadly, the New Scientist, while it implies that a detection of an extraterrestrial signal is imminent, has inadvertently wandered into a sticky vat of hyperbole.

-- Seth Shostak

 

[ThomasR]

gart12

Thanks for the understanding. I get excited thinking we might find something in space. But thinking of history in general back when the world was flat and extended only as far as the shores of the Atlantic, wondering what was at the other end of the vast ocean, it would be like finding native Indians greeting these strange floating islands approaching from someplace unknowable. Strange looking beings with strange ways and machines coming to create the problems we have today.
______________________________________________

I did 9 Gs for 42 seconds in a centrifuge. My entire back and butt were one large purple bruise when I came out of there. Not fun. But hey, I didn't black out--woo hoo!

My point: if you're going to accelerate to the speed of light, you had better take your own sweet time. Anything over 2 Gs for 64 days (or whatever it was) would really blow goats.

It takes nine years to get to Mars with todays technology traveling at 66,000 mph. With ion propulsion I read this 50 million mile gap can be crossed in a few weeks. I am thinking that might be unreasonable unless our science has devised a way to apply acceleration to every cell in the body like those black floating triangles being spotted around Canada seem to be doing.

 

[ThomasR]

Montage

NASA 1​

​

Pretty cool pictures​