Antimatter is an energy source possible through the equation E=MC2. Which is the same equation used to create the Atom Bomb and opened up a plethora of resources through the understanding of Nuclear Energy. Which is how we know this energy source is possible and not just "speculation" But, building a craft to support the raw force that Anti Matter meeting Matter expels isn't possible right now.

Nobody said move the entire race to one place. That means death. After while the several of billions of us will have to split up, if that means, people will move to the moon, some City in the orbit of Earth or Mars. Right now, those are the closest and most viable means of splitting up our ever growing race.

Virgin Galactic is a tourist attraction and won't be leaving Earths Orbit. Something I think would cost more than going somewhere and not coming back as it is a tourist attraction for tourists, you know?

Go read up the distances between Earth and Mars, during Opposition. It's the closest that Mars gets every 2 years.

I like how you said "Future Homes" then say "Future Home" right after. You were right the first time. Our race is bound to split up at some point whether you like it or not. It's the chance that we'll take to increase our odds of surviving after we've reached the tipping point and cannot sustain the billions of lives. Were at 7 billion people right now. And it's rising a hell of a lot faster than were dying.

You really underestimate what a Colony ship is. It's typically the size of a city that can stop and let people off and on, like a port. A GenerationShip is something that would be a lot bigger because the supplies needed to already be on board and the thousands of humans living on it. It typically won't stop until it gets to the destination. A World Ship is that moon size planetoid ship you thought I was talking about. That will definitely be built in space and would be home to millions of people. That is at the point where we can take resources from pretty much anywhere and is far beyond our technology at the moment.

Also when in space and you're at the new home world planet and about to colonize it. You don't land your WHOLE fleet. You go in groups, bringing down supplies and whatnot. And the fact that you're already in space is a huge bonus with a massive megaship/space station
So, when you're down on the ground you don't have to turn your megaship into scrap metal or make new spaceships from resources from the planet, which you'll need for other things.

And Humans aren't supposed to be bound to a planet forever. At least I don't think so. Seeing that it's possible to go out there, just not now.

About antigravity. This is what humans got so far.



You don't need the atmosphere to engulf the whole planet. As long as you have a magnetic field strong enough to keep the ozone atmosphere in place to capture the Sun's UV's in a small radius or known as Paraterraforming. Doing things inches at a time. It's good enough. It's not like us ass holes need the entirety of the planet right off the get go.

You don't go back and forth to transport that much gas. You shoot it off in that direction and hope it gets there for the others to receive, which goes back to my earlier statement that Humanity will get divided and hopefully we both don't forget that both groups of humans exist.

And The Voyager I and II you're so proud of leaving our solar system is no Bigger than a Sub Compact Car. It's mass heavily takes into account for leaving the solar system as well as it's fuel supply. Something a thousand times bigger than that with a limited supply of fuel is a different story. Talking about that generation ship. Though I can see us getting past this with a Gravitational Slingshot.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Escape_velocity

EDIT:

By using this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planetary_Grand_Tour and Interplanetary Transport Network would eliminate the overuse of fuel.

As I said countless times before, I think moving people to mars/a city in the orbit of the earth/the moon is a stupid idea since you still need to continuously ship off resources from the earth to all three of those. Neither can sustain themselves.

Good point, but you never specified.

Relevant?

Not even a percent of the population is going to leave the earth once it's been decided that we need to leave the earth. First of all, the majority of the earth's population consists of people that are not fit for space travel. When you want to colonise a planet, you only want the 'best' (most intelligent, most healthy, genetically safe, ...) people to go.

A generation ship simply implies that it will have multiple generations of crew. It doesn't say anything about the size or purpose of the ship. Also, no, colony ships aren't the size of cities. I'm suspecting something the size of a medium-sized skyscraper, not a city.

A world ship is just a very big ship. You don't need any special technology to build something very large.


What the hell are you talking about? "Supposed to" implies that someone or something created mankind with a purpose. No, humanity exists purely because of random factors.


Uhh, that video doesn't show "anti-gravity"... Gravity still applies force to the object. What you're showing is a superconductor 'bending' a magnetic field around it, i.e. the Meissner effect. It has nothing to do with "anti-gravity". Gravity is one of the four basic forces in our universe as we know it. There is no way to circumvent it.

First of all, ozone is a barely magnetic gas. Second, how are you going to prevent first and second law of thermodynamics from kicking in? Are you gonna build gigantic walls to keep the heat on one spot of the planet?!

Look, the power of my argument didn't come from the method you were going to transport it with, it came from whether you're gonna transport it at all. Explain to me how you're going to transport a billion cubic metres of gas.

They are different things. I'm simply insisting that you don't need a new kind of technology to get a large craft out of the earth's (relevant) gravitational pull.

I don't see where you're getting antimatter from. There's actually very little of it anywhere near the Earth. Making it costs even more energy than using it would release, due to the second law of thermodynamics. Project Orion is a much more reasonable method of acquiring large amounts of thrust, but it's currently outlawed by the "no weapons of mass destruction in space" treaty that prevents the use of nuclear warheads outside of the atmosphere.

Antigravity doesn't exist as we know it.

Repeat it with me: Antigravity does not exist until PROVEN by a reputable scientific source, otherwise. YouTube is not a reputable scientific source, since people on there seem to believe that perpetual motion machines can exist. Perpetual motion machines do NOT exist EITHER. The second law of thermodynamics demands that they cannot. Antigravity is only denied by the fact that we have not observed anything that seems to fit that qualification, and we certainly have not created it in a laboratory.

Once we are into space, given enough time, ion thrust engines can provide a very large amount of total thrust (over a huge time period, anyways) for a very low fuel cost. It is possible to send a ship of almost arbitrary size out of the solar system using ion thrusters, assuming that the ship does not have a significant gravitational field of its own to catch the ions with, and that you have a significant amount of time to wait to get your destination. Within the given time frame, current technology could almost undoubtedly get a ship to anywhere in the known galaxy.

The real issue is getting the ship there faster than the people on it go extinct due to sustainability issues.

Magnetic fields are important for planets, but only due to the fact that they prevent nearby stars, usually, from blasting the atmosphere off the planet with their solar wind. Ozone is not really a part of that, it's actually a side effect of the atmosphere nearly being blasted off the planet by the solar wind. The advantage of the magnetic field is that it directs the solar wind either around the planet or into its poles. The former does no damage at all, and the latter contains the damage by having a net momentum that doesn't take things off the planet. Or at least, that's how I understand it. Without a magnetic field, even a red dwarf can strip a planet of its atmosphere given several hundreds of millions of years. The average blue giant could probably do the same in a couple hundred, if not a couple decades. Then again, the uncharged radiation (gamma rays, heat) from a blue giant prevents them from making good life supporting stars anyways.

There's not much left to say after what suomy said. I have one thing to add:

Another issue is "wait time". From what I understand, it could be possible that a century after a "colony ship" has been sent out, a new technology that allows the construction of faster and more reliable spacecraft is developed. So if we send newer, updated ships out to the same planet another craft had been sent to a century before, it could be possible that the inhabitants of the first colony ship discover an already centuries-old colony that had been sent out after them.

That's why it's important to pick the right moment to send a colony ship out, since its use could be nullified if a better technology is developed before it reaches its destination.