why human space travel is not possible?

I listened to a lady on the radio that explained WHY Star Trek is not possible. She said that a ship, such as Kirk's Enterprise, held over 1,000 people. The problem was, according to her; water! She said that they would have to TOW a container containing billions of gallons of water, behind Enterprise, to give everyone aboard a year supply of water, as Enterprise is usually out there for about a year, or more.

She also said, even if they recycled everything, they could not insure enough water for that many people, for a entire year. AND the container of water would be constantly leaking water due to meteors hitting it and making holes in it.

She concluded that ROBOTS is the future of space travel.

What do you think?

If they could figure out how to travel the galaxy in a ship made to fit 1000 people, I'm sure they could also figure out how to supply them with water. They were on a completely different level of technology, so it's unfair to try and solve their problems using our current level of technology.

I think water would be a very small problem for you if your ship is capable of going faster than light speed. You could afford to make some pit stops at local comet belts. There are so many physics problems associated with Star Trek that the tv show basically is just about magic.

If cruise ships manage, I'm sure a faster-than-light starship could work it out. Though a year without resupplying is unrealistic in any form.

Well, if you'll permit me to wear my nerd specs for moment, the Enterprise has shields to protect against meteors, and supplies are generated on demand by replicators (by plucking the abundant subatomic particles out of space and rearranging them into atoms and molecules of pre-programmed patterns for food, drink, etc.). Of course, it all sounds pretty preposterous, but that's science fiction for you - you have to have a few "magic wands" to make the stories work.

Kirks ship was more advanced than the Nx-01 that predated Kirks enterprise but was still called enterprise as well, now they had protein resequencers that they used to recycle urine and gray water into drinking water also like the replicaters on Kirks ship the protein resequencers could make water for the crew to drink.

Also don't forget they could have gotten ice from comets and used that as a source of drinking water.

In Star Trek, Kirk's Enterprise was a "Constitution"-class cruiser with a crew of 430. (note, 430 < 1,000).

As for water, in Star Trek, they had matter replicators which took energy and converted it into whatever they needed (Remember that matter and energy are interchangeable via E=mc^2).

"Even if they recycled everything, they could not insure enough water for that many people", luckily, Kirk's enterprise didn't have that many people anyway haha.

Starships in Star Trek use matter/antimatter reactions which release a tremendous amount of energy. The energy that isn't used for the warp drive is used to power most of the rest of the ship (chemical combustion from a ships impulse engines provides the rest). So this left over energy is more than enough to be converted to matter to meet the needs of the crew of the star ship.

Recycling is done simply by converting the wasted matter back into energy for use later.

So this lady on the radio needs to understand more about Kirk's Enterprise before she goes around bashing it.

It seems as though math wasn't this lady's strong point. I assume that she was only using the Enterprise as an example of a large star ship, but not the Enterprise exactly. As others have pointed out, the Enterprise had replicators which would have easily been able to make all the water they needed.

But even in the real world water would not be that big of a problem. I have no idea where she got the figure of billions of gallons of water. One billion gallons would give each member of the crew more than 2000 gallons of water per day for one year. I don't think that they're going to need that much water. But let's assume that our 1000 member crew uses 25 gallons each per day. Let's assume that they recycle their water. Which they would have to do, because unless the ship has a leak, the water isn't going anywhere, so they have to recycle it. Even the ISS recycles its water. So at 25 gallons per day the crew would need a reserve of 25,000 gallons. That would fill a pool approximately 10' x 10' x 35'. About the size of a regular size swimming pool. On a ship the size of the Enterprise that's not that big of a deal. Pick up an ice comet every once in awhile to top off the tanks and you're set.

Also, if the ship is leaking water, then it's also leaking air. I think that I'd worry about the leaking air first.

I think she expressed an opinion. Everybody has one. I notice that you did not include the lady's credentials. My guess is that she had none. Even if she is an expert in some type of field, there are errs in her assumptions.

First, water does not need to be carried about a spacecraft in a billions of gallons container in tow. Water can be made by combining hydrogen and oxygen atoms. Since the lady was not aware of this, it causes one to believe that she was unqualified to speak on the topic but simply wanted to blow some hot air out of her mouth to make herself feel better. Perhaps she was selling a book and making false statements on the radio caused some people to throw their money away by believing in her crap. This would not be a first.

http://www.physorg.com/news113057397.html

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/10/071031125457.htm

Secondly, Kirk took over command of the Enterprise in the year 2264AD. (Star dates were a matrix combination of time and location).

NCC-1701 employed a system of artificial gravity unknown to us in 2008. It could be assumed that parts of the craft did not employ artificial gravity and would thus weigh zero. One gallon or one billion gallons would weigh the same - zero.

NCC-1701 was not a small ship. It was designated as a Constitution Class Heavy Cruiser. It carried a crew of about 430 persons. This is contrary to the lady's statement of over 1,000 and is strongly suggestive that the lady was speaking on a subject she had not studied and was therefore not qualified to make opinions about. This one oversight in her presentation is by itself enough to discredit all of her opinions and comments as they would not be supported by facts.

I don't suppose the lady ventured as to the construction material of NCC-1701....I didn't think so....I would certainly hope that a craft able to withstand the bombardment of enemy photon torpedoes and traveled at 5 times the speed of light would be built to withstand micrometeor impacts which are almost always less than 1 inch in diameter and more normally the size of a grain of sand. That's not something that would be overlooked by technicians. Deflector shielding was common among this class of ships. There is no possible way that spaceships built 250 years from now will be built from the construction materials used in 2008.

http://startrek.wikia.com/wiki/Utopia_Plantia_Yards

Robots and unmanned probes will always have their place in the exploration and discoveries of space. The distance factors are overwhelming with our current technology and propulsion systems. But manned missions will never be phased out. Wherever man (and when I say man, I mean mankind) CAN land safely and return home again, he WILL. Wherever this is not possible, this is when robots will serve their purpose. The use of robotic missions does not in any way demean man's exploration efforts. There are some planets and moons where a man cannot land on. There are some areas of our galaxy where sending a man would not be practical due to the time length of the mission. Robots are made by man. They are a tool which man uses if and when he decides to.

There's way too much bs in the world to waste your time on it. My suggestion would be to change the radio station.

She considered the "Enterprise" and the 'impossibility'
she came up with was water supply?
To enjoy that fantasy, you have to suspend belief in science ... period.
That said, while we've traveled in space for short journeys, there's
a lot of hazards out there that pretty much prohibit long journeys
unless we're prepared to lift an impractical amount of mass, and use
an improbable amount of energy.
The hard radiation alone makes a long trip a probable death sentence.
'Robot's are the probable exploration means for the foreseeable future.