4 ms·

The idea that humanity will ever travel even to the nearest star is pure fiction. Anyone who thinks otherwise just fails to grasp the distances involved. They

The idea that humanity will ever travel even to the nearest star is pure fiction. Anyone who thinks otherwise just fails to grasp the distances involved. They are so large as to be beyond understanding.

senorjazz 8y ago
Unfortunately, I think you are right. We haven't done so well in taking care of this planet that is perfect for us, we evolved for it. People talking about living on dead, inhospitable planets / moons are just getting carried away with mental science fiction masturbation imho. Which is a fun activity in itself and with merit I agree, but realistically. Very soon, the very best minds we have are going to be on how to save humanity from destroying itself here within the century. Not looking to colonise the stars.
OscarCunningham 8y ago
The distance to the moon is already beyond intuition, but you can still understand how to get there by doing calculations. If the numbers say that it's possible then it's possible.
SeanMacConMara 8y ago
the _nearest_ star is actually quiet close :-]
ekianjo 8y ago
thats pretty accurate as far as current technology goes, but then again with a few additional centuries of research we never know what we end up achieving.
- ben_w 8y ago
  We could just about do interstellar now if an existential threat called for it. Project Orion or a nuclear salt water rocket are both possible already.
mrep 8y ago
The idea that humanity won't ever travel even to the nearest star is pure fiction. Anyone who thinks otherwise just fails to grasp exponential growth. They are so large as to be beyond understanding.
- paulryanrogers 8y ago
  "...won't ever... is pure fiction" Do you mean to say humanity certainly could travel to the nearest star? I'm skeptical that anything resembling humanity could because everlasting exponential growth requires infinite resources. And humanity evolved on an abundant--but far from infinite--gravity well.
  - mrep 8y ago
    I was mostly making a point that grandiose statements can be rebutted by similar (in this case, changing 3 words) grandiose statements. To answer your question though, the main problem with space travel isn't physics (assuming you are ok with long travel times), it's economics. We have sent astronauts to the moon and probes all across the solar system. The main reason we don't do more though is because of how expensive it is. However, a thousand years of 2% growth (not a given but again, grandiose) means we would have 400 million times more money to possibly spend on space travel. A NASA budget 400 million times larger could certainly build and send a spaceship 4 light years to alpha centauri. Now how long will we sustain exponential growth? Well that's anyones guess but I don't see us becoming resource constrained for a long long time. The sun produces 10^13 more energy than the world used in 2013 according to [0] and we have plenty of resources in the solar system to build with (and we can recycle more). [0]: https://www.quora.com/How-much-energy-does-the-sun-produce-per-second-compared-to-what-earth-uses-in-a-year https://www.quora.com/How-much-energy-does-the-sun-produce-p...
    - jcranmer 8y ago
      > To answer your question though, the main problem with space travel isn't physics (assuming you are ok with long travel times), it's economics. I'd argue it's biology, not physics. Sending a rock to another star is easy. Sending a rock that can send back data is probably possible with our technology, but it's unlikely it would retain data transmission capabilities long enough to actually report back from another star. Sending a bunch of humans and keeping them alive the entire journey? It's not clear we can do that for a round trip to Mars, let alone an interstellar journey.
slfnflctd 8y ago
My vote is still with the brain in a jar (or something close to it). Fewer resources, less area, and much of the life support equipment could be shared between many individuals. There's reason to believe it would extend lifespans as well, provided that an entirely virtual life could be made worth living. I honestly think we'll achieve this long before we're able to properly or effectively simulate a brain with computers of any kind.
no1youknowz 8y ago
Let's be a bit more positive on Humanity's progress eh? Humanity is on the cusp of three major technological breakthroughs that will quite literally change everything. 1) AI. Even if we don't reach ASI in the near term, we'll have ANI to help us research new technologies in months/years rather than decades. 2) Asteroid Mining. Whether it's Musk/Bezos/A. N. Other, the very first time someone brings down an asteroid. It will herald the dawn of abundance for precious metals. What will happen to prices is another topic. But this will allow researchers to develop even more exotic materials. With better materials resistant to heat, more conductive elements, etc, etc. Humanity be able to build what can only be dreamt of. 3) 7 Billion (now). 13 Billion with Mars, 50+ Billion with Europa, Titan, Ganymede, etc, etc, etc. There will be a time where Humans will stretch beyond this solar system. Imagine how many breakthroughs will be possible with 100m researchers and AI trying to crack something? What will make this possible? With 1 and 2, we'll be able to finally crack fusion reactors. This will enable faster space travel than with current engines. Habitats will evolve from those initial Mars missions and will sprawl into mega cities. Who knows, there may even be Luxury apartments hovering in the upper atmosphere of Venus. All this progress is exponential and if you stop to look around. The seeds are being sewn right now. By 2050, some things we consider Sci-fi will be reality. Oh and I'll just throw this one in. 4) Nasa has been doing some work on the Alcubierre drive. Who is to say, that the issues that cannot be surmounted now, will be in the future? For those that want to know more. I'll leave a channel that goes into such things [0]. [0]: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC2kkCGRqZWaSIK3BmLC8vaw/videos https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC2kkCGRqZWaSIK3BmLC8vaw/vid...
- jcranmer 8y ago
  > 2) Asteroid Mining. Whether it's Musk/Bezos/A. N. Other, the very first time someone brings down an asteroid. It will herald the dawn of abundance for precious metals. What will happen to prices is another topic. But this will allow researchers to develop even more exotic materials. Say what? The idea that asteroid mining will enable material science revolutions is fanciful. We're not exactly short on metals (even precious metals). And interplanetary space is less extreme than environments we can create in terrestrial situations, so we're not going to find weird new stuff by poking around asteroids.

senorjazz 8y ago

Unfortunately, I think you are right. We haven't done so well in taking care of this planet that is perfect for us, we evolved for it. People talking about living on dead, inhospitable planets / moons are just getting carried away with mental science fiction masturbation imho. Which is a fun activity in itself and with merit I agree, but realistically. Very soon, the very best minds we have are going to be on how to save humanity from destroying itself here within the century. Not looking to colonise the stars.

OscarCunningham 8y ago

The distance to the moon is already beyond intuition, but you can still understand how to get there by doing calculations. If the numbers say that it's possible then it's possible.

SeanMacConMara 8y ago

the _nearest_ star is actually quiet close :-]

ekianjo 8y ago

thats pretty accurate as far as current technology goes, but then again with a few additional centuries of research we never know what we end up achieving.

ben_w 8y ago
We could just about do interstellar now if an existential threat called for it. Project Orion or a nuclear salt water rocket are both possible already.

mrep 8y ago

The idea that humanity won't ever travel even to the nearest star is pure fiction. Anyone who thinks otherwise just fails to grasp exponential growth. They are so large as to be beyond understanding.

paulryanrogers 8y ago
"...won't ever... is pure fiction" Do you mean to say humanity certainly could travel to the nearest star? I'm skeptical that anything resembling humanity could because everlasting exponential growth requires infinite resources. And humanity evolved on an abundant--but far from infinite--gravity well.
- mrep 8y ago
  I was mostly making a point that grandiose statements can be rebutted by similar (in this case, changing 3 words) grandiose statements. To answer your question though, the main problem with space travel isn't physics (assuming you are ok with long travel times), it's economics. We have sent astronauts to the moon and probes all across the solar system. The main reason we don't do more though is because of how expensive it is. However, a thousand years of 2% growth (not a given but again, grandiose) means we would have 400 million times more money to possibly spend on space travel. A NASA budget 400 million times larger could certainly build and send a spaceship 4 light years to alpha centauri. Now how long will we sustain exponential growth? Well that's anyones guess but I don't see us becoming resource constrained for a long long time. The sun produces 10^13 more energy than the world used in 2013 according to [0] and we have plenty of resources in the solar system to build with (and we can recycle more). [0]: https://www.quora.com/How-much-energy-does-the-sun-produce-per-second-compared-to-what-earth-uses-in-a-year https://www.quora.com/How-much-energy-does-the-sun-produce-p...
  - jcranmer 8y ago
    > To answer your question though, the main problem with space travel isn't physics (assuming you are ok with long travel times), it's economics. I'd argue it's biology, not physics. Sending a rock to another star is easy. Sending a rock that can send back data is probably possible with our technology, but it's unlikely it would retain data transmission capabilities long enough to actually report back from another star. Sending a bunch of humans and keeping them alive the entire journey? It's not clear we can do that for a round trip to Mars, let alone an interstellar journey.

slfnflctd 8y ago

My vote is still with the brain in a jar (or something close to it). Fewer resources, less area, and much of the life support equipment could be shared between many individuals. There's reason to believe it would extend lifespans as well, provided that an entirely virtual life could be made worth living. I honestly think we'll achieve this long before we're able to properly or effectively simulate a brain with computers of any kind.

no1youknowz 8y ago

Let's be a bit more positive on Humanity's progress eh? Humanity is on the cusp of three major technological breakthroughs that will quite literally change everything. 1) AI. Even if we don't reach ASI in the near term, we'll have ANI to help us research new technologies in months/years rather than decades. 2) Asteroid Mining. Whether it's Musk/Bezos/A. N. Other, the very first time someone brings down an asteroid. It will herald the dawn of abundance for precious metals. What will happen to prices is another topic. But this will allow researchers to develop even more exotic materials. With better materials resistant to heat, more conductive elements, etc, etc. Humanity be able to build what can only be dreamt of. 3) 7 Billion (now). 13 Billion with Mars, 50+ Billion with Europa, Titan, Ganymede, etc, etc, etc. There will be a time where Humans will stretch beyond this solar system. Imagine how many breakthroughs will be possible with 100m researchers and AI trying to crack something? What will make this possible? With 1 and 2, we'll be able to finally crack fusion reactors. This will enable faster space travel than with current engines. Habitats will evolve from those initial Mars missions and will sprawl into mega cities. Who knows, there may even be Luxury apartments hovering in the upper atmosphere of Venus. All this progress is exponential and if you stop to look around. The seeds are being sewn right now. By 2050, some things we consider Sci-fi will be reality. Oh and I'll just throw this one in. 4) Nasa has been doing some work on the Alcubierre drive. Who is to say, that the issues that cannot be surmounted now, will be in the future? For those that want to know more. I'll leave a channel that goes into such things [0]. [0]: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC2kkCGRqZWaSIK3BmLC8vaw/videos https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC2kkCGRqZWaSIK3BmLC8vaw/vid...

jcranmer 8y ago
> 2) Asteroid Mining. Whether it's Musk/Bezos/A. N. Other, the very first time someone brings down an asteroid. It will herald the dawn of abundance for precious metals. What will happen to prices is another topic. But this will allow researchers to develop even more exotic materials. Say what? The idea that asteroid mining will enable material science revolutions is fanciful. We're not exactly short on metals (even precious metals). And interplanetary space is less extreme than environments we can create in terrestrial situations, so we're not going to find weird new stuff by poking around asteroids.