Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

100,000 stars

workshop.chromeexperiments.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

91–100 of 115 posts

Re: 100,000 stars

#91

Post by pja »

adastra wrote: post #88
scott_s wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Obligatory buzz-kill, Charles Stross on why we're unlikely to leave the solar system: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2639456

He's wrong. For starters, there's this assertion: "The far-fetched version is to use back holes as power sources [1] as this is, as far as I've read anyway, the only remotely viable method of providing propulsion without reaction mass to speak of and reaction mass is the death of any form of interstellar propulsion." Not true. We can definitely build something with today's technology that allows for propulsion withou…

So you're suggesting two almost completely undeveloped technologies (light sails and extremely high-powered lasers in space) and telling us that interstellar propulsion is a solved problem? That's a tad optimistic :)

Btw, if you'd read 'Accelerando' you'd know that Charlie is fully aware of the possibilities offered by laser powered light sails.

Re: 100,000 stars

#92

Post by secondForty »

krsunny wrote: post #75
secondForty wrote: post #29

This is REALLY COOL! Could someone explain how this is built or give an overview of how it works? In the 'about' page http://www.chromeexperiments.com/detail/100000-stars/ it says WebGL and CSS3D, but I'm wondering how they fit together and what does what. Is there a better way to view the source than just 'view source' in chrome? I know a number of programming languages and I'd like to learn more about how this proj…

https://github.com/mrdoob/three.js/ - That should get you going. Download that and take a look at all the examples and how they are made. Here is a good book on webgl too - http://www.amazon.com/WebGL-Up-Running-Tony-Parisi/dp/144932...

Tanks Krsunny! Really helps to have some advice on what's current and where to start.

Re: 100,000 stars

#93

Post by platonichvn »

shanelja wrote: post #6

This is without a doubt one of the coolest and most beautiful webgl experiments I have seen in the last few years, it actually struck a real chord with me - music, lighting, effects, the zoom and the sheer beauty of it. For those people unlucky enough to not be able to load this app (it took me quite a while) here is a particularly fantastic image I took (without asking or any right to, of course) - http://shanearmst…

I agree this is a fantastic demonstration of technology and art.

Re: 100,000 stars

#96

Post by scott_s »

adastra wrote: post #88
scott_s wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Obligatory buzz-kill, Charles Stross on why we're unlikely to leave the solar system: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2639456

He's wrong. For starters, there's this assertion: "The far-fetched version is to use back holes as power sources [1] as this is, as far as I've read anyway, the only remotely viable method of providing propulsion without reaction mass to speak of and reaction mass is the death of any form of interstellar propulsion." Not true. We can definitely build something with today's technology that allows for propulsion withou…

How powerful do the lasers need to be? How are you going to power it for 150 years?

Re: 100,000 stars

#97

Post by no_news_is »

abrichr wrote: post #45
equalarrow wrote: post #20

WOW, that is amazing. I'm always blown away by stuff like this, where you can actually get a sense of how small we all are and how distant even the closest neighbor stars are. I just close my eyes for a minute and think (or try to), what would it be like for those people that are finally able to reach, say, Vega (I know it's not the closest). Sure, this is not a big deal in sci-fi, but for reality, it's pretty mind b…

Working link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Earth%27s_Location_in_the_...

Pannable version, that file was too big for me & I remembered this tool from another HN post:

http://hugepic.io/7c2aaf4a6

Re: 100,000 stars

#98

Post by nathan_long »

shanelja wrote: post #81
altrego99 wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I am guessing you have liked this too - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=17jymDn0W6U Being a video it is not interactive, but definitely does strike something in me. It's almost the Total Perspective Vortex.

Until now I had not seen this video, but thank you. This really puts in to perspective the brevity of human life and how little we have achieved so far, from leaving the primordial soup to firing Glee across our television network to entertain teenage girls and travelling to and from the moon. We are irrelevantly small and unimportant and yet we have already done the hardest thing, of what we know for sure, there are…

>> We are irrelevantly small and unimportant

That we are relatively small is undeniable. That we are unimportant is an emotional judgement that I think is unwarranted. Size != importance.

Importance is a value judgement made in a mind. My left thumb is more important to me than Alpha Centauri is. As far as I know, Alpha Centauri has no opinion on the matter.

Are we important to one another? To yet-unknown sentient creatures? To God?

The answers to those questions will probably not depend on whether we are 1 meter or 1 parsec tall.

Re: 100,000 stars

#99

Post by adastra »

pja wrote: post #91
adastra wrote: post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

He's wrong. For starters, there's this assertion: "The far-fetched version is to use back holes as power sources [1] as this is, as far as I've read anyway, the only remotely viable method of providing propulsion without reaction mass to speak of and reaction mass is the death of any form of interstellar propulsion." Not true. We can definitely build something with today's technology that allows for propulsion withou…

So you're suggesting two almost completely undeveloped technologies (light sails and extremely high-powered lasers in space) and telling us that interstellar propulsion is a solved problem? That's a tad optimistic :) Btw, if you'd read 'Accelerando' you'd know that Charlie is fully aware of the possibilities offered by laser powered light sails.

Stross and cletus both say we will never leave the solar system and travel to another star. Never!

I'm trying to show that notion is dead wrong. I didn't say it was a solved problem, if you mean in the sense of the engineering is basically done and we're launching something tomorrow. But certainly it is very reasonable to think that within with 150 years we will have both the technological and economic advancement to do a mission to another star. We know how we'd do it, and it uses real physics and engineering, materials, etc. that already exist.

The main reason Stross is wrong though, is he says we'd need free energy to do it. He's right that the limiting factor is the cost of energy, but he's overlooking what you get for 150 years of economic growth. World GDP has grown at an average annual rate of 3.5% over the last 100 years. World GDP is currently at about $80 trillion. If it grows at 3.5% for another 150 years, it will be $14,000 trillion. You can buy a lot of energy with that. And a lot of spaceships.

Re: 100,000 stars

#100

Post by adastra »

scott_s wrote: post #96
adastra wrote: post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

He's wrong. For starters, there's this assertion: "The far-fetched version is to use back holes as power sources [1] as this is, as far as I've read anyway, the only remotely viable method of providing propulsion without reaction mass to speak of and reaction mass is the death of any form of interstellar propulsion." Not true. We can definitely build something with today's technology that allows for propulsion withou…

How powerful do the lasers need to be? How are you going to power it for 150 years?

The mission would leave in 150 years. It would last for 20-30 years one way.

The laser (a bank of lasers, more likely) would need to consume energy at a rate approximately equal to the world's entire current electricity production, basically continuously for the duration of the mission.

That seems absurd of course. But again, you can't underestimate compounded interest applied to GDP growth (see above comment). In 150 years time, the cost to do the mission could easily be the same percentage of US GDP as the Apollo mission was in the 1960's.

Of course if the assumption of continuous future economic growth doesn't hold up, this isn't going to happen. But in that case the world will have much bigger problems... this will be something of a non-issue.

Post reply on HN