If we do space travel between stars it would not be this century or even the next. I think star trek might have it right with the 23rd century, but it could also be never ever.
Space travel to the stars......Even when we can do it, shouldn't we then wait for another 25-50 years?
- Thread starter barnacler
- Start date
I don't think so. You aren't Robert DeNiro are you? SF is Science Fiction. I found it amusing as a boy, about the time Johnny Mathis sang "Blue Velvet"...
Last edited:
not to be pessimistic, most mammal species last approximately one million years, and we’ve exhausted about a third of that... but we’ve also exploded in population to nearly unsustainable levels. I’d bet humans will find a way to destroy themselves within the next thousand years - maybe not an extinction, but extinction levels of population reduction.
the “happy” place for earth’s resources is though to be around 5 billion.
The last 50 years of progress was in large part due to Moore's Law bringing more computing power for cheaper. I have heard that we have another 20 years or so worth of Moore's Law, after that we have to contend with quantum shit.
20 years from now we could hit a brick wall, and only make very marginal gains in science and tech because we no longer have moore's law to help us.
I am not being pessimistic, 20 years worth of moore's law is like 100x increase in computation horsepower, it probably is not enough for a self-aware AI but for would probably allow for robots to displace most humans from laborious work. It would also make robots unstoppable killing machines if used as a weapons.
20 years from now we could hit a brick wall, and only make very marginal gains in science and tech because we no longer have moore's law to help us.
I am not being pessimistic, 20 years worth of moore's law is like 100x increase in computation horsepower, it probably is not enough for a self-aware AI but for would probably allow for robots to displace most humans from laborious work. It would also make robots unstoppable killing machines if used as a weapons.
Last edited:
Faster than light travel is theoretically possible, maintaining respect for relativity. The problem is the energy-density required.
Near-light speed is pretty fast and is attainable likely in a few generation’s time. The problem is slowing down will take just as much energy as it took to accelerate - and carrying that mass with the craft will create an exponents paradox.... but this doesn’t even begin to describe the bigger problem - just how bloody big space is.
Proxima Centuri is our closest celestial neighbor at 4.2 light years (or 270,000 times the distance of Earth to the sun).
There’s a slight chance that Proxima B (around 4.5 light years away) is a Class M planet with it being in the “sweet spot”.
so there’s a chance. But it’s a one way ticket. Much like the explorers and settlers of the past three hundred years.... the next generation will be colonizing other planets. Those who survive any way.
Our computational abilities already vastly outpace our ability to engineer - as the hurdles to engineering are usually political or economic.
Our exploration of the stars was stunted in the 1970s due to budgetary constraints. Only now can a business model and case be made for the outward expansion of man’s reach.
It will be a race against time, either we destroy ourselves (Vonnegut's Galapagos) or we end up exploring space (Clarke's 2001).
An Einstein-Rosen Wormhole is speculative, we're nowhere near capable of proving it. Even so we'd have to figure out a way to not turn into tomato soup by the time we get to out destination.
An Einstein-Rosen Wormhole is speculative, we're nowhere near capable of proving it. Even so we'd have to figure out a way to not turn into tomato soup by the time we get to out destination.
Or because no one wants to pay the cost and subject people to the significant risks when help is too far away?
Yes, we (essentially) have the technological ability to set up stations on the moon or Mars but without regular resupply missions it will likely be short, one-way missions. Anything outside of our solar system would involve such length travel that we would either need some kind of stasis technology and AI maintenance drones or a large generational ship.
There was a recent paper on the possibility of warp travel but it seems still massively theoretical.
The problem with the comparison is being on the same planet, they knew that any land they found would be very likely to have similar life forms (and an atmosphere that we are suited to). They might not have been sure of returning but they were pretty sure they'd be able to survive.
It is far easier to find and get information about planetary and atmospheric make-up from a planet close to a star than it is for an object in a dark chunk of sky where there is very little to observe.
There is an interesting theory called the Great Filter as part of the Fermi Paradox that describes the possibility advanced species essentially destroying themselves through technology.
The faster than light travel that is theoretically possible requires negative energy, which only exists in theory.
