Yes, light can be slowed down. Scientists have managed to slow it to 17m/s and even more recently actually managed to stop it completely. Theyv'e also been able to speed it up to 300*C. But none of this provides a solution to faster than light travel because, as has already been pointed out, no particle with mass can reach C because it would require infinite energy.
Both subspace and hyperspace are fictional dimentions that don't exist in reality as far as i know. (Correct me if im wrong.)
Although warp drive is theoretically possible, none of the research on it (and there has been quite a bit) has come up with even a theoretical method of warping spacetime and no one has come up with a solution to the einstein field equation.
As far as Mars is concerned i think any manned missions should be an international effort purely because of the costs involved (£9bn for one mission is what NASA have estimated). The ISS and Iter both show what can be achieved with international scientific cooperation (at least they will when theyre finished ). I think theres still some practical issues that need resolving before we can go to Mars. Cosmic radiation isn't much of a problem for relatively short shutlle missions in low earth orbit but a three year round trip to Mars poses a bigger problem. Also i can't see a three year mission being practical in as small a space as the CEV.
What does everyone else think about going back to the moon? i really don't see the point and have a strong sense of 'been there, done that'. The money would be much better spent on something like developing a completely reuseable horizontal take off and landing space vehicle so that cheap manned space missions would be possible. If only Britain hadn't cut funding for the HOTAL project...
This post is getting fairly long now but one more thing - is there actually any point in manned missions to mars? what would they achieve that robotic missions can't for a fraction of the cost? At the moment the only thing i can think of is that it would be a massive achievement for mankind and thats the only reason i support it, but the lack of scientific value for money is what might make governments decide not to fund such projects. I think it's quite possible the next US administration might scrap the whole project. Bush wanted multiple regular missions to the moon to establish a permanent base and then further missions to Mars but all NASA has budgeted for, as far as im aware, is one mission to the moon...
I agree on the international co-operation point, although I think the private sector will play an increacing role in the future...
On the moon: I read in Astronomy Now that an Isotope of Hydrogen or Helium found on the moon in quite an abundance, may actually proove to be very useful in the search for cold fusion. Also the lower gravity would make deep space missions much cheaper if they run from conception to launch on the moon. And the absence of any real atmosphere would make astronomy much easier on the moon, compared to Earth.
There is actually a plan for a privately built space plane at the moment, take a look at http://www.reactionengines.co.uk for more info. Its even based in the UK!!
The point of going to Mars is to explore. It is what we do as humans. It will provide very good information as to what may happen to Earth in the future, as Mars is thought to have once been very much like Earth, to search for life and to continue the expansion of the human race out into the universe.
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
All times are GMT
Page 2 of 2Goto page Previous1, 2
). I think theres still some practical issues that need resolving before we can go to Mars. Cosmic radiation isn't much of a problem for relatively short shutlle missions in low earth orbit but a three year round trip to Mars poses a bigger problem. Also i can't see a three year mission being practical in as small a space as the CEV.
