Topic: First Contact.... (Read 3822 times)

DestinyCalling · « **on:** December 20, 2003, 08:57:02 am »

ok, so First Contact is on tv at the mo... And I thought, if this all happens in 2063 (all of 60 years away) then Zephram Cochranes future parents should be alive and well and kicking around somewhere...

Make sure he studies Astrophysics....!!!

Yeah I know.... only a movie

Maxillius · « **Reply #1 on:** December 22, 2003, 02:02:30 am »

Also note that WWIII occurs in the 2050's and that some 600,000,000 people die as a result of nuclear blasts and the resulting nuclear winter. Let's hope it's just a movie.

b.t.w. not many things scare me, but the thought of nukes going off round the world does

Cleaven · « **Reply #2 on:** December 22, 2003, 03:57:38 am »

Quote:

b.t.w. not many things scare me, but the thought of nukes going off round the world does

Hate to break this to you but for quite a while there were nukes goin' off left, right and centre around the world, first in the atmosphere, then underground/water.

Maxillius · « **Reply #3 on:** December 22, 2003, 08:11:16 am »

I didn't mean those little test ones, I meant the big ones that are loaded in the silos that would erase New York or London in one pop.

Sten · « **Reply #4 on:** December 22, 2003, 08:33:55 am »

Considering the ones that took out Hiroshima and Nagasaki were 15-17 KT and the "Little" ones now are on the order of 300KT. There are not so little.

Check out the greenpeace site for some useful info on the number of tests conducted. Over 2000 Nuclear tests since 1945.

http://archive.greenpeace.org/comms/nukes/ctbt/read9.html

So going back to the original bombs they would still demolish New York or any other large city in the world.

Cleaven · « **Reply #6 on:** December 22, 2003, 08:55:38 am »

A modern Trident warhead has a yield of about 100 KT. The Americans and Soviets have tested multi-megaton warheads. I don't know how much the French and Chinese have also contributed to the rise in the background of long-lived radioactive isotopes being laid down in rock strata on this planet, but I'm sure that archeologists many millenia in the future will find it a useful reference point.

... and look here Professor, the disc labelled "SFC2:OP second back-up" we found was clearly associated with a layer of very high plutonium .... they may be linked ... perhaps the discs were atomic powered.

DestinyCalling · « **Reply #8 on:** December 22, 2003, 01:13:48 pm »

wow.... I'm making a point about the "Father of Warp Drive" and it turns into a "Nuke Trumps"......

maybe there isn't any hope after all

762 · « **Reply #9 on:** December 22, 2003, 01:40:50 pm »

You forget - the Phoenix was built off an old Titan ICBM.

DestinyCalling · « **Reply #10 on:** December 22, 2003, 03:11:22 pm »

"It is a historical irony that Dr Cochrane should use a weapon of mass destruction to usher in a new era of peace"

Point conceded

Cleaven · « **Reply #11 on:** December 22, 2003, 04:14:32 pm »

Now if only our elevated radioactive background was due to the launching of fission powered spacecraft used for the manned exploration of our solar system.

Stormbringer · « **Reply #12 on:** December 22, 2003, 11:11:30 pm »

See Nirva and Minerva nuclear rocket test article programs. Environmentalists try to sabotoage even RTG powered space probes. I doubt nuclear rockets will ever fly. Though the motors themselves have been tested. They were essentially steam rockets using nuclear reactors to super heat the water propelant. (IIRC)

Magnum357 · « **Reply #13 on:** December 23, 2003, 03:49:35 am »

WHOW! Nuclear Rockets! I had no idea they where trying to develope engines like that! Although I'm not a big Green peace fan, I must admit that would be a little scary too see a Nuclear Powerd rocket launching.

Man, I live First Contact (well, the time travel part was the only slight problem with the story) but it does depress me that its very possible this world could still be wipped out by a nuclear barrage so easily. I would love to see Gene's vision of the future come to life, but with all the greed of humanity and this clumsy system of Capitolism that favors people too "manipulate people to get profit", I'm real skeptical it could ever happen. Really brings me down.

Cleaven · « **Reply #14 on:** December 23, 2003, 05:48:58 am »

I was thinking about a project code named Orion, a nuclear pulse powered spacecraft. Even explaining the concept to a greenie is liable to cause them to have an appoplectic fit.

Magnum357 · « **Reply #15 on:** December 23, 2003, 03:15:15 pm »

Ah, I see. I thought you were talking about Nuclear Powered Rockets to get into orbit. Actually, having Spacecraft powered by Nuclear Power might be the only way to go if we are ever going to travel to other planets in the solor system. Just ain't enough fuel for standard rockets.

Cleaven · « **Reply #16 on:** December 23, 2003, 11:13:21 pm »

I could readily imagine an Orion style ship being used to get into orbit in a post nuclear war period. It would be excellent for lifting the heavy loads one could assume is required for a warp core, and fuel units would be readily available. And who's going to care about a little but more contamination.

Stormbringer · « **Reply #17 on:** December 23, 2003, 11:42:11 pm »

The ones I'm talking about were basically steam engines whose heat source is the heat of a nuclear reactor. The exhaust is steam. It would be ahrmless unless it crashed. There were other programs that developed engines that harnessed nuclear blasts to propel the ship. They can reach a small but significant fraction o fthe speed of light they would be built in space and never touch down again. They would only be nuking empty space. I think someone mentioned one, Orion; I believe. All these conceptual studies (orion, et al.) and test engines (Nirva and minerva) were abandoned some time ago though there is talk of bringing them back to get to mars.

Magnum357 · « **Reply #18 on:** December 23, 2003, 11:54:33 pm »

They HAVE too bring those projects back because conventional rockets aren't going to cut it. Remember how big the Saturn Rockets where too get a Man on the moon? All that Rocket and Fuel too get a pay load smaller then the Space Shuttle (I think?). I just don't think a conventional Rocket is going too cut it too get too Mars. the ship is going to have too be much bigger then the Command Modules that went too the moon and your going too need more pay load for food and living space. And if the ship needs too make course corrections it needs a powersource that is substantially more effiecent then Solid Rocket fuel engines.

Heck, going too Mars is going too be much more difficult too do then going too the moon. If we are going too do this, we might aswell go their with a whole crew of people and setup a Basecamp that is fully capable of sustaining themselves on their own. Kinda like the Base they have down at the South Pole, only much more isolated. And have Automated Rocket ships once a year send supplies that are needed for the Basecamp. From their, the Scienctists, Miners, constructors can assemble the beginnings of a true coloney and maybe even start concepts for Terra Forming. I say if your going too do this, have long term plans in mind and not go their just plant a flag and say "I was here!" and then leave. Waste of resources, time, and money in my opinion.

Stormbringer · « **Reply #19 on:** December 24, 2003, 12:09:13 am »

Well they could do it with conventional rockets. It would be slow and smaller than necessary. They will probably use a faster technology to get there in times humans could tolerate. It might be fission, fusion, ion, solar sail or laser propulsion. They need to get the trip time down to under four months. Those are the only way to do that. there are a lot of semi independant groups studying ways to do it. try looking at a site called space.com and searching for mars articles.

mathcubeguy · « **Reply #20 on:** December 24, 2003, 01:12:54 am »

Is 600 million a reasonable number of deaths from a nuclear war?

Stormbringer · « **Reply #21 on:** December 24, 2003, 01:23:23 am »

really; are any number of deaths reasonable? Projections in the former cold war from population figures at the time elude me. 600 milion is likely to be a low end figure. It is more likely to be into the billions particularly if long term incidental deaths due to cancer and such are taken into account. I was discussing spacecraft. not nuclear war. I was in a tangental subthread to the original thread.

Stormbringer · « **Reply #23 on:** December 29, 2003, 11:41:52 pm »

Hey MCG! There is no need to edit your post it's not like you kicked my puppies or anything. There is room for a nuclear war subthread and it was discussed further up in the thread's hiarchical tree. You post was not offensive or anything; just misplaced. post it back.

DestinyCalling · « **Reply #24 on:** December 20, 2003, 08:57:02 am »

ok, so First Contact is on tv at the mo... And I thought, if this all happens in 2063 (all of 60 years away) then Zephram Cochranes future parents should be alive and well and kicking around somewhere...

Make sure he studies Astrophysics....!!!

Yeah I know.... only a movie

Maxillius · « **Reply #25 on:** December 22, 2003, 02:02:30 am »

Also note that WWIII occurs in the 2050's and that some 600,000,000 people die as a result of nuclear blasts and the resulting nuclear winter. Let's hope it's just a movie.

b.t.w. not many things scare me, but the thought of nukes going off round the world does

Maxillius · « **Reply #27 on:** December 22, 2003, 08:11:16 am »

I didn't mean those little test ones, I meant the big ones that are loaded in the silos that would erase New York or London in one pop.

Sten · « **Reply #28 on:** December 22, 2003, 08:33:55 am »

Considering the ones that took out Hiroshima and Nagasaki were 15-17 KT and the "Little" ones now are on the order of 300KT. There are not so little.

Check out the greenpeace site for some useful info on the number of tests conducted. Over 2000 Nuclear tests since 1945.

http://archive.greenpeace.org/comms/nukes/ctbt/read9.html

So going back to the original bombs they would still demolish New York or any other large city in the world.

Cleaven · « **Reply #30 on:** December 22, 2003, 08:55:38 am »

A modern Trident warhead has a yield of about 100 KT. The Americans and Soviets have tested multi-megaton warheads. I don't know how much the French and Chinese have also contributed to the rise in the background of long-lived radioactive isotopes being laid down in rock strata on this planet, but I'm sure that archeologists many millenia in the future will find it a useful reference point.

... and look here Professor, the disc labelled "SFC2:OP second back-up" we found was clearly associated with a layer of very high plutonium .... they may be linked ... perhaps the discs were atomic powered.

DestinyCalling · « **Reply #32 on:** December 22, 2003, 01:13:48 pm »

wow.... I'm making a point about the "Father of Warp Drive" and it turns into a "Nuke Trumps"......

maybe there isn't any hope after all

762 · « **Reply #33 on:** December 22, 2003, 01:40:50 pm »

You forget - the Phoenix was built off an old Titan ICBM.

DestinyCalling · « **Reply #34 on:** December 22, 2003, 03:11:22 pm »

"It is a historical irony that Dr Cochrane should use a weapon of mass destruction to usher in a new era of peace"

Point conceded

Cleaven · « **Reply #35 on:** December 22, 2003, 04:14:32 pm »

Now if only our elevated radioactive background was due to the launching of fission powered spacecraft used for the manned exploration of our solar system.

Stormbringer · « **Reply #36 on:** December 22, 2003, 11:11:30 pm »

See Nirva and Minerva nuclear rocket test article programs. Environmentalists try to sabotoage even RTG powered space probes. I doubt nuclear rockets will ever fly. Though the motors themselves have been tested. They were essentially steam rockets using nuclear reactors to super heat the water propelant. (IIRC)

Magnum357 · « **Reply #37 on:** December 23, 2003, 03:49:35 am »

WHOW! Nuclear Rockets! I had no idea they where trying to develope engines like that! Although I'm not a big Green peace fan, I must admit that would be a little scary too see a Nuclear Powerd rocket launching.

Man, I live First Contact (well, the time travel part was the only slight problem with the story) but it does depress me that its very possible this world could still be wipped out by a nuclear barrage so easily. I would love to see Gene's vision of the future come to life, but with all the greed of humanity and this clumsy system of Capitolism that favors people too "manipulate people to get profit", I'm real skeptical it could ever happen. Really brings me down.

Cleaven · « **Reply #38 on:** December 23, 2003, 05:48:58 am »

I was thinking about a project code named Orion, a nuclear pulse powered spacecraft. Even explaining the concept to a greenie is liable to cause them to have an appoplectic fit.

Magnum357 · « **Reply #39 on:** December 23, 2003, 03:15:15 pm »

Ah, I see. I thought you were talking about Nuclear Powered Rockets to get into orbit. Actually, having Spacecraft powered by Nuclear Power might be the only way to go if we are ever going to travel to other planets in the solor system. Just ain't enough fuel for standard rockets.

Cleaven · « **Reply #40 on:** December 23, 2003, 11:13:21 pm »

I could readily imagine an Orion style ship being used to get into orbit in a post nuclear war period. It would be excellent for lifting the heavy loads one could assume is required for a warp core, and fuel units would be readily available. And who's going to care about a little but more contamination.

Stormbringer · « **Reply #41 on:** December 23, 2003, 11:42:11 pm »

The ones I'm talking about were basically steam engines whose heat source is the heat of a nuclear reactor. The exhaust is steam. It would be ahrmless unless it crashed. There were other programs that developed engines that harnessed nuclear blasts to propel the ship. They can reach a small but significant fraction o fthe speed of light they would be built in space and never touch down again. They would only be nuking empty space. I think someone mentioned one, Orion; I believe. All these conceptual studies (orion, et al.) and test engines (Nirva and minerva) were abandoned some time ago though there is talk of bringing them back to get to mars.

Magnum357 · « **Reply #42 on:** December 23, 2003, 11:54:33 pm »

They HAVE too bring those projects back because conventional rockets aren't going to cut it. Remember how big the Saturn Rockets where too get a Man on the moon? All that Rocket and Fuel too get a pay load smaller then the Space Shuttle (I think?). I just don't think a conventional Rocket is going too cut it too get too Mars. the ship is going to have too be much bigger then the Command Modules that went too the moon and your going too need more pay load for food and living space. And if the ship needs too make course corrections it needs a powersource that is substantially more effiecent then Solid Rocket fuel engines.

Heck, going too Mars is going too be much more difficult too do then going too the moon. If we are going too do this, we might aswell go their with a whole crew of people and setup a Basecamp that is fully capable of sustaining themselves on their own. Kinda like the Base they have down at the South Pole, only much more isolated. And have Automated Rocket ships once a year send supplies that are needed for the Basecamp. From their, the Scienctists, Miners, constructors can assemble the beginnings of a true coloney and maybe even start concepts for Terra Forming. I say if your going too do this, have long term plans in mind and not go their just plant a flag and say "I was here!" and then leave. Waste of resources, time, and money in my opinion.

Stormbringer · « **Reply #43 on:** December 24, 2003, 12:09:13 am »

Well they could do it with conventional rockets. It would be slow and smaller than necessary. They will probably use a faster technology to get there in times humans could tolerate. It might be fission, fusion, ion, solar sail or laser propulsion. They need to get the trip time down to under four months. Those are the only way to do that. there are a lot of semi independant groups studying ways to do it. try looking at a site called space.com and searching for mars articles.

mathcubeguy · « **Reply #44 on:** December 24, 2003, 01:12:54 am »

Is 600 million a reasonable number of deaths from a nuclear war?

Stormbringer · « **Reply #45 on:** December 24, 2003, 01:23:23 am »

really; are any number of deaths reasonable? Projections in the former cold war from population figures at the time elude me. 600 milion is likely to be a low end figure. It is more likely to be into the billions particularly if long term incidental deaths due to cancer and such are taken into account. I was discussing spacecraft. not nuclear war. I was in a tangental subthread to the original thread.

Stormbringer · « **Reply #47 on:** December 29, 2003, 11:41:52 pm »

Hey MCG! There is no need to edit your post it's not like you kicked my puppies or anything. There is room for a nuclear war subthread and it was discussed further up in the thread's hiarchical tree. You post was not offensive or anything; just misplaced. post it back.

News:

Topic: First Contact.... (Read 3822 times) var addthis_config = {"data_track_clickback":true};

DestinyCalling

Maxillius

Cleaven

Maxillius

Sten

762

Cleaven

762

DestinyCalling

762

DestinyCalling

Cleaven

Stormbringer

Magnum357

Cleaven

Magnum357

Cleaven

Stormbringer

Magnum357

Stormbringer

mathcubeguy

Stormbringer

vsfedwards

Stormbringer

DestinyCalling

Maxillius

Cleaven

Maxillius

Sten

762

Cleaven

762

DestinyCalling

762

DestinyCalling

Cleaven

Stormbringer

Magnum357

Cleaven

Magnum357

Cleaven

Stormbringer

Magnum357

Stormbringer

mathcubeguy

Stormbringer

vsfedwards

Stormbringer

Topic: First Contact.... (Read 3822 times)