# Re: topmind spreads his seed

On 2006-07-02, topmind <topmind@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

Mark VandeWettering wrote:
On 2006-07-02, topmind <topmind@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

z wrote:
On 29 Jun 2006 21:00:17 -0700, "topmind" <topmind@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:

A simpler way to picture this is to take your spores and put them on the
lattices of a 10000 x 10000 x 10000 cube. If the cube has an edge of two
light-years, then that's a distance of a couple of billion km between
spores.

I am not sure what this is meant to imply. They don't travel in a
strait line, but rather will tend to be attracted to stars due to
gravity.

And would tend to end up impacting said stars due to gravity. Last
time I checked, the Sun was by far the biggest gravity well in our
solar system.

Yes, but unless something heads nearly strait at it, it will not pull
it directly into it.

Their motion will be perturbed by any star they encounter.

Agreed, but that is not the point. My point was that smashing directly
into a star is not that likely.

If it is unlikely to hit the star directly, then how likely is it to
hit a habitable planet?

The "target zone" for stellar orbits is far far wider than that for
smacking directly into a star.

This is, of course, dependent on the relative velocity of the two bodies.

There will likely be some difference in motion between the pod and the
star itself, which usually turns into an orbit of some kind.

This depends again upon the relative velocities of the two bodies.

The particle was at the escape velocity of the Earth's system, if it
passed no closer than 1AU to a similarly sized star, it would escape the
gravitational attraction of *that* star just as it did for our star.

If it is unlikely for a spore to orbit the star, how much less likely for
it to be captured by a planet and orbit it?

Huh? I am not sure what you are referencing here. When I said "hit a
star directly", I mean impact into the *face* of the star, not merely
enter it's system.

Fine. If it is unlikely for a spore to hit a star, how much less likely
is it for it to hit the face of a planet?

Yep a cloud of capsule that manages to fall sling-shot around a mass
will get spread out. They still will all be travelling in the same
direction. Remember Shoemaker-Levy 9? It got broken up and dispersed
by Jupiter. The fragments all stayed in pretty much the same orbit.

But they were together when broken up. If they were *already* a bit
apart, then they would have been pushed even further apart by passing
close. The "line" was not perfectly strait.

"Straight." But all ended up mashing into Jupiter. None were flung out
of the solar system.

of millions of years.

*sigh*

The amount of energy needed to create the astronomical number of
packages you need to send out to have even the slimmest chance of a
successful landing is going to be far greater than you need to send an
EM signal. Which goes orders of magnitudes faster.

But again, does not last as nearly as long. If you really want to get a
message out, you use different approaches.

Mmmm. Handwavy goodness.

It is logical to try different, *varied* approaches when you want to be
assured that X will happen.

All the approaches that you've suggested, to the degree that they are
actually described, represent approaches which are so unbelievably
unlikely to succeed that they would be absurd to attempt, given any
economic equation imaginable.

similar to the reason why we diversify our investment portfolios
rather than put all our money into the single best candidate.

It's like diversifying your portfolio with lottery tickets.

What your hypothesis requires is an intelligent delivery system- not
bricks of spores. You need something that can slow down when entering
a star system at the very least. You don't need full on UFO's piloted
by BEM, but you do need something. You are tossing a perishable
product out there.

Let's put a picture of the spores on milk cartons :-)

I don't know if we currently have the technology for such long-duration
controlled unmanned flights. It would need some kind of self-repair
capability.

However, we do have the technology for a human-crewed
stars.

Given that the furthest away from earth we've been is only 250,000 or so
miles, that seems like a pretty bold assertion. The distance to alpha
centauri is about 101 million times greater. It's kind of like saying
that if you can run a mile, you can run to the sun.

Could you quote a respected scientist or engineer who has details on
why such is not possible (if a big wallet)?

The question wasn't whether such a thing was possible. You claimed
that we had this technology. We simply do not. There are ideas for
such craft, but the technologies needed to actually construct and launch
such a vehicle simply do not exist.

Most scientists are still discussing how people might reasonably be
shipped just across the street to Mars. Can you suggest someone who
thinks that we have the technology for multi-generational, nuclear
powered space craft?

Sci-fi writers and scientists in lunch rooms have been proposing these

And for the most part, haven't got a clue how to solve the millions of
technical hurdles required to achieve such a thing.

Mark

-T-

.