*Comments are the views of individuals, they may or may not be correct.
All comments are reviewed and accepted or rejected.
If you give an email address, you will be sent an email when someone makes a comment on this page.*
|
| Tim-g | June 11, 2010, 2:43 pm |
| The Oort Cloud is another wonderful example of: " The only evidence for it's existence is the data it was invented to explain". |
|
| maria | February 9, 2010, 5:41 pm |
| i really liked it but i need info on how many years it takes to travel from the earth to the oort cloud please email me bye. :) |
|
| Andrew Galloway | November 1, 2009, 2:06 am |
| "how would we slow-down/turn to dodge all the comets, etc in the Oort Cloud? Or would we just go underneath (around) it? I hope someone can answer this. "
Its pretty simple. The likelihood of us running into any type of brick-sized or greater object is extremely low. Keep in mind that these objects are spread out among very vast distances.
On the other hand your question does raise a good point. Once we get to, probably 10%, maybe 25% the speed of light, and definently 50% the speed of light, any type of atomic/molecular collision would be catastrophic. I heard that hitting a spec of dust would be like hitting a brick wall in a car. What is more dangerous than the ort cloud is interstellar space, which is riddled with gas and other molecules.
Our only real solution would be some type of absorbtion system, basically like the deflector shield on Star Trek, using traditional means of travel. If we were simply warping space time and moving the space around us it wouldn't be as much of an issue.
The original project orion back in 1959, which was axed by NASA and the Air Force because nuclear was too political, (they chose project Apollo), absorb the force of nuclear fission explosions.
There might be multiple options. Perhaps shaping the spacecraft like a pencil, and having the edges of the craft some type of liquidic or super-heated armor.
Another system would use nanobots, if a molecule pierced the hull it would simply travel right through, the carbon nano-tubes would either be designed to chemically heal, would be biological and would regenerate, or would be composed of nano-bots that automatically closed the hole.
Perhaps another means of transportation would involve using a laser projected directly out in front of the ship to deflect particles, though this would require vast amounts of energy and probably wouldn't work. |
|
| Carl Fucci Jr | July 8, 2008, 5:46 pm |
| John from Holland, I'm not sure how the breakup of one comet suggests that our solar system is young. Do we even have an educated guess as to the age of Schwassmann-Wachmann 3? The comet was "discovered" in 1930, and survived sixty-five years before breaking up, passing every 5.4 years. Even if it were created at the moment of its discovery, it lasted through 12 orbits. Logically speaking, a comet of similar mass and situation would survive in such a manner. So how about Comet Haley which passes every 86 years? Other comets are proven to pass once in thousands or even millions of years, and we need to study further to decide their life-span and insinuate our solar system's age. |
|
| David K. Bybee | April 30, 2008, 7:20 am |
| The possibility is fascinating...
"There are more things in heaven
and earth than are dreamt of in
your philosophy..."
William Shakespeare |
|
| John from Holland | February 5, 2008, 11:36 pm |
| The Oort cloud is a myth. Or rather: an imgaginary object, to allow the Bing Bang model meet physical reality. Comets orbit the sun, and break up quite radiply (on cosmological scales) due to melting of the icy rocks inside. Actually, comets (which are part of the solar system since they orbit the sun) are proof that the solar system cannot be billions of years old.
http://edition.cnn.com/2006/TECH/space/04/28/comet.breakup/ |
|
| Ivan L. | October 14, 2007, 1:32 am |
| Is there proof? We have seen fuzzy pictures, but for people who doubt the oort cloud to believe it we have to have clear pictures. Not a computer drawn diagram of where it exists or where we think it exist. |
|
| Truthful-faker | October 11, 2007, 4:08 am |
| If we are to leave the solar system, one day, and travel to the stars, how will we get thru the Oort cloud? Assuming we are traveling at 50% the speed of light, how would we slow-down/turn to dodge all the comets, etc in the Oort Cloud?
Or would we just go underneath (around) it?
I hope someone can answer this.
|
|
| Frank Bollinger | September 8, 2007, 9:39 pm |
| Where is the material for the Oort cloud proposed to come from, according to Oort theories and his supporters? I had a similar hypothesis not based on orbit trajetories but the fact that sun has much material coming off of it and I need to do the calculations but the velocities must have an orbit unless they are hyperbolic and leave Suns gravitational influences. Because the materials expelled have different velocities and therefore the orbital spin would distribute orbits of the materials at a band in space that I thought maight be the Oort Cloud. The other part of my hypothesis was that the accumulation of solar expelled materials would eventually accumulate into cometary bodies. Further once these comitary bodies become dense enough will leave into closer orbits in an oscilatory manner and could be cause of the bombardent statistics to go up causing mass extinctions apro. every 70 million years aprox.. |
|
| C.D. Campbell | September 7, 2007, 6:40 am |
| "The Oort Cloud in brief is an hypothesized area in space"
"There has been no definate evidence that the cloud exists"
So what you are saying is that this crap is made up. What's it doing in a science book, should be in a fairy tale. |
