The NASA Curiosity Rover on Mars

My reason would be that there are probably people reading this thread who want to read about Curiosity specifically. They probably don't want a very general thread about space to be the place where they go for news about Curiosity.

Fair point.

So I guess someone will do a space thread instead.

I'm wondering if there's enough discussion about space in general to justify a separate thread. Then again, maybe having a thread for it would encourage more discussion?

That's a good point. I'd be up for a general space thread.

^ Worst case, if a thread starts but it doesn't get much traffic, it's not like the mere existence of a barely-alive thread is going to crash the forum servers and make the amount of cash Fast Eddie's bank account plummet like Felix Baumgartner.

If no one goes to the space science thread, just redirect back here. But I predict it will be a popular thread, and that "War in Spaaace" will become the predominant theme fairly quickly.

Thing is that i there was enough interest generate a space thread without Curiosity it probably would have happened by now. What you're getting here though is occasional posts about general space topics anyway so I don't think Curiousity will get overwhelmed, just the space people (who are I'm betting all Curiousity people too) will have somwhere to go. Did any of that make sense?

Look, Nasa's working on a warp drive. Can I just make the Space thread?

Let Best Of make the decision. If he decides to rename this one, a new thread is a wasted effort.

Really? I've heard of the alcubierre drive before but I was always told it wasn't feasible. If they found a way to solve that problem this could completely change human history. Forget being in Alpha Centauri in two weeks. We could fly between Mars and Earth in a matter of hours. That would dramatically increase the speed at which we could potentially colonize it.

edited 9th Dec '12 9:19:43 AM by Kostya

yea.

On the down side, we don't have the shuttle anymore so actually building this thing in orbit is going to be a pain in the ass. This likely isn't something we can just strap to a rocket.

Well we have to design another spaceship anyway. I guess we'll just be sure to make room for this thing.

Do we have any idea on the power source? It's probably going to take a lot of energy even if it's less than it normally would take.

Given that this will take a while to actually develop, we might have fusion reactors by that point. I don't know if theres much else we could use to power it, besides normal reactors(which will be fourth generation at least by then, which would be a big improvement)

But that's my guess. they didn't really say specifics on how to power it.

edited 9th Dec '12 10:05:14 AM by Joesolo

Warp space?

Woah, I was sure I would never witness the beginning of the Space Age (the real thing).

Can't wait to see what comes out of this technology.

Dont think we dont see what you just did there, Joesolo. Well played, my friend.

Anyway, I've been thinking about this, and it occurs to me that there really isnt much going on in terms of current space science outside of the Curiosity. The new thread should probably be "Grounded Speculations on the Near Future of Space Exploration and Science" or something along those lines, and I think it would be reasonably popular. If the new thread is limited strictly to what NASA is up to right now, there just isnt that much to discuss. So I propose two threads: 1) This one, which would be rededicated to "NASA and Space Exploration" and 2) A broader thread dedicated to hard-science based speculations on near future progress and possibilities.

...I did something?

EDIT- oh, you think I tried to hijack the thread.

edited 9th Dec '12 10:45:29 AM by Joesolo

The original Alcubierre Drive required reaction mass approximately equal to Jupiter. The new design should only need about 1,600 pounds (the article is a little unclear if that's the size of the reactor or the reaction mass), which is still still a lot, but "really expensive" is better than "only barely even possible."

I'd think that's just the fuel. they were talking about what it would take to fuel it, not the reactor itself.

I meant the power source they'd use, not the generator or engine. Would ordinary rocket fuel be powerful enough or do we need to build a miniature nuclear reactor?

That sounds like a lot, but I have no basis for comparison. How much reaction mass does it take to power a nuclear submarine?

Definitely has to be something nuclear. Rocket fuel doesn't generate electricity, which is what you'd need for anything like this.

edited 9th Dec '12 10:58:22 AM by Discar

Well, unless there is a connection between Curiosity and the Alcubierre Drive that I wasnt previously aware of, I'd say that you did hijack the thread (and thereby demonstrating that we need a dedicated space science thread).

And now I must say: On topic, guys.

It was entirely unintentional, I apologize. I meant it as "heres something for a general space thread", not as something to actually discuss.

Just start a new thread then, Best Of said he had nothing against it.

We just need a consensus to know if we rename the thread.

At least, that's what I understood.

Well, I'm gonna go start it then. worst case scenario someone yells at me IN CAPS LOCK.

EDIT- Alright here it is.

edited 9th Dec '12 12:48:42 PM by Joesolo

I've opened it. Do note my post there.

Duly noted. no space-war discussions.