Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

At 8/1/07 06:03 AM, Sajberhippien wrote:

At 7/30/07 05:49 PM, AdamRice wrote: Hmmm, life discovered on another planet, what would that say about creationism?

Nothing really. It could have come up "by itself" or it could had been created.

Actually if it came up "by itself that would more or less stab creationism and most religions with a rusty knife, twisting that knife then kicking them in the throat. Which would honestly make me extremely sad, while I hate it when fanatical religious people go and kill each other, I don't really want to see their (myself included) beliefs being shaken at what is more or less the roots.

At 8/5/07 11:47 PM, Gwarfan wrote: Because the gravity of Jupiter is strong enough to pull whatever kind of craft we try to send to Europa into Jupiter's own atmosphere. You don't understand, Jupiter's gravitational pull is Earths gravity more than 100 fold. We have to prepare for the worst. And a spacecraft that is able to land in Europa, should be able to withstand Europa's atmosphere, dumb ass. It's kind of implied when I say that.

Well then we should be extra careful, and if it DID pull the craft into Jupiter's atmosphere it would be screwed, because if it pulls it in then there is no way in hell it will get back out. I understand Jupiter's gravity is a hell of a lot stronger than ours, but there's no reason protecting the craft against any other atmosphere besides Europa's, ours, and possibly the other moons'. Like I said if it gets pulled in then it won't come back out. And don't call me a dumbass.

At 8/7/07 02:56 PM, Gwarfan wrote: My original statement was about Europa, I said over and over again that when you have a ship going to a planet, or moon, shouldn't that craft be able to withstand the atmosphere of said planet you are landing on?

Sorry on the triple post, NG please make a system that lets us edit our previous posts.
><
Anyways, just how in the hell do you plan on landing on Jupiter? It's a GAS GIANT. Meaning no solid ground too land on except perhaps a small core in the middle where pressure and atmosphere would both utterly destroy whatever tries to reach the middle of it.

I'M NOT SAYING IT IS GOING TO LAND ON JUPITER. Jesus Christ! And that is exactly why I said it should be able to withstand the ATMOSPHERE of Jupiter, not the Lithosphere, because it can't! Christ!

At 8/7/07 02:56 PM, Gwarfan wrote:

At 8/7/07 12:10 AM, EndGameOmega wrote:

No he's not. You said Jupiter's atmosphere, not Europa's.

My original statement was about Europa, I said over and over again that when you have a ship going to a planet, or moon, shouldn't that craft be able to withstand the atmosphere of said planet you are landing on?

Yes, of course it should, but that's not what you originally said. You corrected your self later but it is not what you originally said. You made mention of Jupiter's atmosphere and said nothing of Europa's, seeing how Jupiter's atmosphere is irrelevant it was assumed you made a mistake. You clam you implied Europa's atmosphere, you very well though you did, but your writing says otherwise.

No, not really. Unless the object is passing through the atmosphere of earth there is no reason to make it capable of withstanding it. The amount of resources you would need to spend to make the device capable of surviving both would be enormous, far more then double the cost of the ship or probe incapable of surviving both.

If you are spending the large amount of money to go to such a distant place such as Europa, and Jupiter's gravity is much greater than that of Earth or Mars or any other planet in the solar system, and you are going right into Jupiter's gravitational pull to get to Europa, wouldn't it be smart to develop a way to withstand Jupiter's atmosphere, gravity and be able to get back on course to Europa? That is what I am trying to say.

No it wouldn't. Jupiter's atmosphere doesn't extend that far, as for it's gravity it wouldn't be an issue for the craft it self. If the probe was to veer off course and enter Jupiter atmosphere it would be destroyed, and no amount of shielding or equipment could stop that. You would literally have to spend trillions of dollars to send a second rocket with it to pull it out of Jupiter atmosphere and there is no way in hell any organization would get that kind of funding, not to mention the additional complexity that would be caused by adding a rocket system. Even if only one out of ten craft managed to get to Europa, it would still be far cheaper to make as is, rather then shield them from Jupiter's atmosphere.

Try millions, and no it wouldn't be smart.

The Apollo missions alone cost us 24 billion. 'Answering President Kennedy's challenge and landing men on the moon by 1969 required the most sudden burst of technological creativity, and the largest commitment of resources ($24 billion), ever made by any nation in peacetime. At its peak, the Apollo program employed 400,000 Americans and required the support of over 20,000 industrial firms and universities." Source

Your point? First off, there will never be another Apollo like mission with in our life times, especially after the ISS. Secondly, The Apollo missions where done over a decade durring which time NASA's funding was at it's peak, and secondary project where halted for the Apollo mission. Virtually all craft that leave earth are less then 500 million dollars. Take a look at the
New Horizons space probe. It cost 650 million, and they had to fight tooth and nail just for that. So I will say this again, millions, not billions. You could NEVER get approval for something over 800 million. Congress wouldn't approve anything that large.

At 8/7/07 06:36 PM, EndGameOmega wrote:

Yes, of course it should, but that's not what you originally said. You corrected your self later but it is not what you originally said. You made mention of Jupiter's atmosphere and said nothing of Europa's, seeing how Jupiter's atmosphere is irrelevant it was assumed you made a mistake. You clam you implied Europa's atmosphere, you very well though you did, but your writing says otherwise.

FINE YOU WIN. PLEASE CONTINUE ARGUING ABOUT WHAT I SAID, EVEN THOUGH I HAVE CORRECTED MYSELF OVER AND OVER AGAIN. CHRIST!

No it wouldn't. Jupiter's atmosphere doesn't extend that far, as for it's gravity it wouldn't be an issue for the craft it self. If the probe was to veer off course and enter Jupiter atmosphere it would be destroyed, and no amount of shielding or equipment could stop that. You would literally have to spend trillions of dollars to send a second rocket with it to pull it out of Jupiter atmosphere and there is no way in hell any organization would get that kind of funding, not to mention the additional complexity that would be caused by adding a rocket system. Even if only one out of ten craft managed to get to Europa, it would still be far cheaper to make as is, rather then shield them from Jupiter's atmosphere.

Fine, whatever, you win.

Your point?

Who gives a fuck how much it costs? The opportunity to find new life on another planet outweighs any cost. It would be the greatest scientific find in human history.

At 8/7/07 09:08 PM, Gwarfan wrote:

At 8/7/07 06:36 PM, EndGameOmega wrote:

Yes, of course it should, but that's not what you originally said. You corrected your self later but it is not what you originally said. You made mention of Jupiter's atmosphere and said nothing of Europa's, seeing how Jupiter's atmosphere is irrelevant it was assumed you made a mistake. You clam you implied Europa's atmosphere, you very well though you did, but your writing says otherwise.

FINE YOU WIN. PLEASE CONTINUE ARGUING ABOUT WHAT I SAID, EVEN THOUGH I HAVE CORRECTED MYSELF OVER AND OVER AGAIN. CHRIST!

Shouting isn't necessary, and I wasn't trying to win. You didn't seem to understand why others and myself disagreed with your original statement, I was trying to explain why. Additionally you have repeatedly stated that we need to build craft able to with stand Jupiter atmosphere when we aren't even going to Jupiter, merely one of it's moons. This is incorrect, and is what I'm arguing about, you have not corrected your self on this point.

No it wouldn't. Jupiter's atmosphere doesn't extend that far, as for it's gravity it wouldn't be an issue for the craft it self. If the probe was to veer off course and enter Jupiter atmosphere it would be destroyed, and no amount of shielding or equipment could stop that. You would literally have to spend trillions of dollars to send a second rocket with it to pull it out of Jupiter atmosphere and there is no way in hell any organization would get that kind of funding, not to mention the additional complexity that would be caused by adding a rocket system. Even if only one out of ten craft managed to get to Europa, it would still be far cheaper to make as is, rather then shield them from Jupiter's atmosphere.

Fine, whatever, you win.

*sigh* Do you even care about space or rocketry? Your not even willing to listen and discus this topic, so why bother posting at all? I'm not trying to win, I'm trying to explain why your assertions are wrong, as are/where other people.

Your point?

Who gives a fuck how much it costs? The opportunity to find new life on another planet outweighs any cost. It would be the greatest scientific find in human history.

Well NASA and the government certainly care, and to be honest I kind of do as well. There's no need to be inefficient when building or designing a space probe. As I've been saying there's no reason to make the craft capable of surviving Jupiter atmosphere. To try and do so would add a great deal of complexity (with which comes a far greater chance of failure) and cost. A probe that might have normally cost 400 million, might end up costing well of 7 billion, If for no other reason then the designing and building of the corrective rocketry systems. There's just no reason for it, epically when the chance of it entering Jupiter's atmosphere and coming out are effectively nonexistent. In fact if there was a course error that great, there's really nothing that could be done.

At 8/7/07 10:25 PM, EndGameOmega wrote:

Shouting isn't necessary

Internets.

and I wasn't trying to win. You didn't seem to understand why others and myself disagreed with your original statement, I was trying to explain why. Additionally you have repeatedly stated that we need to build craft able to with stand Jupiter atmosphere when we aren't even going to Jupiter, merely one of it's moons. This is incorrect, and is what I'm arguing about, you have not corrected your self on this point.

I said multiple times that I implied that when I say "a craft that can land on europa" I mean a craft that can withstand Europa's atmosphere. I said this many, many, many times. You can look back for yourself. I also said that a craft that can go to Europa and that is going to be dangerously close to such a gravitationally strong planet such as Jupiter, we should prepare for the worst and make a way for such a craft to withstand parts of Jupiter's atmosphere and make it able to put itself back on course to Europa.

*sigh* Do you even care about space or rocketry? Your not even willing to listen and discus this topic, so why bother posting at all? I'm not trying to win, I'm trying to explain why your assertions are wrong, as are/where other people.

I tried to make a point many, many times, but when people pick apart my writing style rather than the point I am trying to make, it gets kinda annoying.

Well NASA and the government certainly care, and to be honest I kind of do as well. There's no need to be inefficient when building or designing a space probe. As I've been saying there's no reason to make the craft capable of surviving Jupiter atmosphere. To try and do so would add a great deal of complexity (with which comes a far greater chance of failure) and cost. A probe that might have normally cost 400 million, might end up costing well of 7 billion, If for no other reason then the designing and building of the corrective rocketry systems. There's just no reason for it, epically when the chance of it entering Jupiter's atmosphere and coming out are effectively nonexistent. In fact if there was a course error that great, there's really nothing that could be done.

You just went around in a full 360. First you say that it is very possible to go to Europa because it would be cheaper than the Apollo missions, now you are saying it's not even worth the cost.

At 8/7/07 11:15 PM, Gwarfan wrote:

At 8/7/07 10:25 PM, EndGameOmega wrote: and I wasn't trying to win. You didn't seem to understand why others and myself disagreed with your original statement, I was trying to explain why. Additionally you have repeatedly stated that we need to build craft able to with stand Jupiter atmosphere when we aren't even going to Jupiter, merely one of it's moons. This is incorrect, and is what I'm arguing about, you have not corrected your self on this point.

I said multiple times that I implied that when I say "a craft that can land on europa" I mean a craft that can withstand Europa's atmosphere. I said this many, many, many times.

Yes, I know you did. But in the first post I responded to, you had not. All you said was Jupiter atmosphere, I acknowledged that you did also imply Europa's, even if it wasn't easily implied from it. But your repeated comment show that you did in fact mean Jupiter atmosphere, which is incorrect.

You can look back for yourself. I also said that a craft that can go to Europa and that is going to be dangerously close to such a gravitationally strong planet such as Jupiter, we should prepare for the worst and make a way for such a craft to withstand parts of Jupiter's atmosphere and make it able to put itself back on course to Europa.

First off Jupiter's dose not extend that far, it's exosphere ends at about 200 Mega meters. The orbit of Europa is at about 650 Mega meters from Jupiter. If a craft was to come that close to Jupiter, there would be little hope in getting it back on course. If the craft came with in about 90 Mega Meters, there would be no coming back, the friction alone would likely destroy the craft. Even if it didn't the energy required to correct the craft is beyond what it would take to launch it from earth. You might be able to perturb it in to a "stable" orbit, but the craft would surely be damaged. It's just not worth the added expense, when failure is almost certain by this point.

*sigh* Do you even care about space or rocketry? Your not even willing to listen and discus this topic, so why bother posting at all? I'm not trying to win, I'm trying to explain why your assertions are wrong, as are/where other people.

I tried to make a point many, many times, but when people pick apart my writing style rather than the point I am trying to make, it gets kinda annoying.

I'm not picking apart your writing style, I simply tried to bring to your attention why people where criticizing it. My argument has been against your presumption that Jupiter's atmosphere has a significant enough impact on a craft to warrant shielding from it.

Well NASA and the government certainly care, and to be honest I kind of do as well. There's no need to be inefficient when building or designing a space probe. As I've been saying there's no reason to make the craft capable of surviving Jupiter atmosphere. To try and do so would add a great deal of complexity (with which comes a far greater chance of failure) and cost. A probe that might have normally cost 400 million, might end up costing well of 7 billion, If for no other reason then the designing and building of the corrective rocketry systems. There's just no reason for it, epically when the chance of it entering Jupiter's atmosphere and coming out are effectively nonexistent. In fact if there was a course error that great, there's really nothing that could be done.

You just went around in a full 360. First you say that it is very possible to go to Europa because it would be cheaper than the Apollo missions, now you are saying it's not even worth the cost.

No, reread what I wrote. Going to Europa would be far cheaper then the Apollo mission, it would have to be if it's to ever be done. What would make it infeasible cost wise is building a craft that could survive Jupiter atmosphere. The design correction is unneeded, costly, and overly complex, with out adding anything useful to the craft it self.

I'm pretty sure there are lots of germs and bugs out there. But, intelligent, animal, or even plant life would be harder to find.

Hopefully the first distant planet we set foot on will have no life...

Dude stop yelling there's no point in it, look I've said before, I HAVE TROUBLE WITH WORDING. You used the word planet instead of the word moon. Oh look a source!

At 8/7/07 02:56 PM, Gwarfan wrote: My original statement was about Europa, I said over and over again that when you have a ship going to a planet, or moon, shouldn't that craft be able to withstand the atmosphere of said planet you are landing on?

Seriously though, the way someone words something can really screw me up, sorry I misunderstood what you were trying to say but you have to admit that was a bit confusing you know.

Can the both of you stop arguing? both of you are kinda getting off topic.

definite. probably not in our ss though. earth being the only planet supporting life is equivilent to saying that bush is the only idiot on earth. just not possible.

I think there is, but what's with this crap of scientists naming all the planets after gods? That's not what the aliens call them.

You said this might get some crazy people :)

At 8/19/07 11:31 AM, keinve1 wrote: definite. probably not in our ss though. earth being the only planet supporting life is equivilent to saying that bush is the only idiot on earth. just not possible.

*clap clap clap*
Yay!

Well all the evidence points to other life being out there somewhere but who knows for sure? So im about 99.95% sure of other life existing outside our solarsystem

Interesting question, what if the life we end up finding isn't organic, or even on a plaint. There's no reason to believe that only carbon based life is possible. http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/200 7/08/070814150630.htm

i wouldn't be surprized but the christians will try and say ailens are the devil.

At 8/20/07 12:25 AM, gostgamer wrote: i wouldn't be surprized but the christians will try and say ailens are the devil.

Someone should make a Flash animation about this.

Has anyone heard of the Drake Equation?

N = R* x fp x ne x fl x fc x L

N is the number of civilizations in our galaxy with which we might hope to be able to communicate;

R* is the average rate of star formation in our galaxy
fp is the fraction of those stars that have planets
ne is the average number of planets that can potentially support life per star that has planets
fl is the fraction of the above that actually go on to develop life at some point
fi is the fraction of the above that actually go on to develop intelligent life
fc is the fraction of civilizations that develop a technology that releases detectable signs of their existence into space
L is the length of time such civilizations release detectable signals into space.

From the OP:
:I personally find it impossible that we are the only beings that evolved in an ever expanding universe which IS infinite, mind you

Interestingly, Infaltion Theory (the correct name for 'Big Bang") says that the universe is NOT infinite in size, just very, very big (and getting bigger). So if you believe the universe is infinite, you can't really believe in the Big Bang.

At 7/30/07 05:49 PM, AdamRice wrote: Hmmm, life discovered on another planet, what would that say about creationism?

Honestly, I don't think it will bother Creationism all that much. The Catholic church used to believe the universe revolved around the earth. They burned people at the stake for saying otherwise. Did real proof that this was untrue destroy the church? No, they simply adapted with it and moved on.

My own opinion is that there MUST be life on other planets. If you take the atheistic viewpoint, I doubt we were so lucky as to be the only place with life in the huge universe. If you take the religious Christian viewpoint, why would God have only one planet populated? Did he just "like" having all the others around?

At 8/20/07 02:11 PM, Reignspike wrote: Interestingly, Infaltion Theory (the correct name for 'Big Bang")

I apologize. The correct name for the "Big Bang" is >Inflation< Theory. As in "the universe inflated from a single point". Typo.

At 8/7/07 04:44 PM, TonyTostieno wrote:

At 8/1/07 06:03 AM, Sajberhippien wrote:

At 7/30/07 05:49 PM, AdamRice wrote: Hmmm, life discovered on another planet, what would that say about creationism?

Nothing really. It could have come up "by itself" or it could had been created.

Actually if it came up "by itself that would more or less stab creationism and most religions with a rusty knife, twisting that knife then kicking them in the throat. Which would honestly make me extremely sad, while I hate it when fanatical religious people go and kill each other, I don't really want to see their (myself included) beliefs being shaken at what is more or less the roots.

Well, my point was that now there are two major ideas on how life came to be; that it came up "by itself", which is the scientifically proven theory, and that it has been created, which is the religious guess. If a lifeform on another planet was discovered, it wouldn't prove anything in any way as we wouldn't know how it came to be there.

At 8/20/07 03:51 PM, Sajberhippien wrote: Well, my point was that now there are two major ideas on how life came to be; that it came up "by itself", which is the scientifically proven theory...

Oh come, on. It isn't in any way "scientifically proven". Show me a source that "scientifically proves" this, and I'll show you a crackpot pseudo-scientist.

Science states that it is LIKELY that life evolved on its own. They still haven't even proven that it's POSSIBLE that it did so!

I'm starting to believe that most people who tout science do it as their religion, blindly adhering to what others "in the faith" have told them.

i think it would be arogent to think that we are alone. there is noting special about humans

the scrin are the aliens, hail kane

At 8/20/07 02:11 PM, Reignspike wrote: Interestingly, Infaltion Theory (the correct name for 'Big Bang") says that the universe is NOT infinite in size, just very, very big (and getting bigger). So if you believe the universe is infinite, you can't really believe in the Big Bang.

It really depends on what you consider the 'universe'. If every molecule does in fact follow through on every possible path available to it and the 'multiverse' isn't just a sci-fi term then the universe, or universes are infinite. or at least infinite - 1.

At 8/19/07 03:14 PM, EndGameOmega wrote: Interesting question, what if the life we end up finding isn't organic, or even on a plaint. There's no reason to believe that only carbon based life is possible. http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/200 7/08/070814150630.htm

Oh yeah, I heard about that, that would be bizzare wouldnt it? A "life"form adapted to the vacuam of space.
Also, about Europa, if they sent a probe there, it would have to be able to dig through a mile or more of ice, and I was wondering, is technolagy sufficent to do that without any humans, millions of kilometres from the signal source? And if they did get through the ice what would the chances of there being simple multicelled organisms like flatworms or jellyfish be?

They exist, indeed
I don't think that we're all alone in this planet...
Maybe there are a lot of planets like this one.

Sure, there might be life out there.

People just need to understand that it would with all likelyhood be basic life. Like bacteria.

No green aliens that will probe your anal. Too bad :0