4 ms·

If it took only 250 years to go from outposts to the late 20th century US, I very much doubt it will take us 1000 years to a solar system-wide civilization as p

If it took only 250 years to go from outposts to the late 20th century US, I very much doubt it will take us 1000 years to a solar system-wide civilization as portrayed in The Expanse. If you subscribe to the exponential nature of civilization changes, then it becomes doubtful Homo sapiens will be around in 100 years!

elorant 8y ago
On the other hand, it's fifty years since we went to Moon and in the meantime we haven't even set-up a tent there. We assume that we'll have the technology for deep space exploration but we tend to forget the logistics nightmare of any such endeavor.
- stcredzero 8y ago
  On the other hand, it's fifty years since we went to Moon and in the meantime we haven't even set-up a tent there. In the early fits and starts of the exploration of Earth, there were multiple spans of 50 years where progress was seemingly abandoned and nothing happened. We assume that we'll have the technology for deep space exploration but we tend to forget the logistics nightmare of any such endeavor. Environmental technology will be harder than we thought at first, then we'll get the hang of it. Some people will die along the way. Then it will improve exponentially, as economic impetus comes into play.
  - GW150914 8y ago
    Environmental technology will be harder than we thought at first, then we'll get the hang of it. Some people will die along the way. Then it will improve exponentially, as economic impetus comes into play. Unless you know a lot that no one serious claims to know, then this is a statement of what you hope for and maybe personally believe, but for which no evidence exists. The sheer bulk of unknown unknowns in environmental tech, not to mention other assumptions you’ve been making about industry in space and more, are too numerous and prevalent to allow for confident statements either way. You may be right that humanity’s destiny is in the far reaches of the solar system, but it could go many other ways. Maybe we’ll die in the dirt, or maybe we’ll thrive in completely different ways. For all that you know, rather than personally wish to believe, our future may more closely resemble something like a Dyson Swarm constructed by drones rather than hurling ourselves into the dim and cold reaches of space. Maybe we’ll figure out a mutually amicable way to control population rates and make the Earth a Paradise, and leave space for robots. Who knows? Not me, not you. All of which is to say, please stop passing off something that is less than a hunch as an argument. The core of science is skepticism and a demand for evidence, while the core of pop science is an inverse relationship between knowledge and enthusiasm. Claiming to know what will happen in 50 years is a joke, in 100 years delusion, and in 1000 years religion. There are so many branches and twists and turns, both positive and negative and just plain unforeseen that futurism is crap.
    - stcredzero 8y ago
      The sheer bulk of unknown unknowns in environmental tech Is why I would bet that lots of people will die while we're getting the hang of it. You may be right that humanity’s destiny is in the far reaches of the solar system, but it could go many other ways. Maybe we’ll die in the dirt Tell you what: If we all end up dead, I'll buy you drinks! But if I'm not wrong, you can owe me my net worth, rounded down to the nearest billion. All of which is to say, please stop passing off something that is less than a hunch as an argument Call it what you like. I call it a conviction. Claiming to know what will happen in 50 years is a joke, in 100 years delusion, and in 1000 years religion. Don't sweat it. I'm not about to judge you morally and strap you to a tree over it. There are so many branches and twists and turns, both positive and negative and just plain unforeseen that futurism is crap. How about, "Science Fiction?"
- justinator 8y ago
  I think in the 50 years, we've found it's more cost effective with a better return on value (and ultimately safer for all humans involved) to just shoot a robot into space equipped with a camera. The whole Red Scare/Space Domination rhetoric was a Big Thing. The United States was sure that: sending something into space meant you could hit a target anywhere else in the world (with quite a bit of validation). If you do remember, it was because we essentially stole tech/scientists (willingly, or at least intelligently from a political and "i'm going to not be locked up in the gulag" point of view) from the Nazis at the end of the WWII that we were even able to get into space. It was a craaaaaazy time.
  - stcredzero 8y ago
    I grew up having nightmares of nuclear holocaust as a child.
- outworlder 8y ago
  It is more due to politics than engineering or logistics. We should have working linear aerospike engines by now. But that project got cancelled(see X-33). We should have had multiple generations of spaceplanes, one half-assed and costly brick did fly, the other was canceled. Many other promising projects met the same fate. We had time, technology and even the logistics in place for incremental development. Instead, 'we' threw a bunch of money down the drain and have nothing to show for it. So we are back to basics, but at least we made a useful leap forward (SpaceX re-usability). Once costs are low enough, new applications will come up, which may become a self-reinforcing cycle. That's what I hope for, at least.
orbital-decay 8y ago
The Americas were only several months of travel from Europe though, much more desirable and nowhere near as hostile. > The Expanse Science fiction and especially science fantasy tend to be pretty inaccurate when it comes to predicting anything.
- stcredzero 8y ago
  The Americas were only several months of travel from Europe though, much more desirable and nowhere near as hostile. Scales for all of those things will be far different in space. Venus, Mars, Ceres, and Titan are quite cozy by those standards. Travel to Mars in 3 months may become routine in our lifetimes. Science fiction and especially science fantasy tend to be pretty inaccurate when it comes to predicting anything. Yes. You wouldn't spin Ceres for "gravity" and Epstein drives are just as fantastical as Warp drives if you start to account for waste heat.
0xffff2 8y ago
I've only read the books, not seen the TV version, but the Expanse universe relies on the "Epstein Drive" as a magical plot device to ignore any inconveniences of intra-system travel. This alone makes it pure science-fantasy that is unlikely to happen on any timescale and unsuitable as a guide to what our future holds.
- rbanffy 8y ago
  The Epstein drive is great for generating gravity directly from acceleration, but electric propulsion that's much less efficient than fiction would be just fine. If you can go to Mars in weeks and to Saturn in months using electric propulsion and a relatively small nuclear power plant on your rotating ship and do multiple trips without the need to stop by a large chunk of ice and hydrocarbons to make more propellant, then the kind of multi-planetary society depicted in The Expanse becomes viable. What it's not is self-starting. Why would someone want to move permanently to the Moon? I can imagine a community starting around scientific research, first government-sponsored, then, maybe, if costs can be driven down enough (thinking SpaceX and lots of hardware reused from previous missions - maybe a couple cyclers that can be replenished/refurbished while in transit) universities in partnership with governments and then, eventually, we'd have critical mass for partners and others unrelated to scientific research to bootstrap a functional society. If manufacturing of equipment can be automated in part and done on the Moon, then using the Moon as a stepping stone to more research on Mars is viable too. In that scenario, I'd consider paying my own ticket. But, still, we need to bootstrap it with a government sponsored research station that can grow into a self-sustaining colony.
  - stcredzero 8y ago
    Why would someone want to move permanently to the Moon? You'd have to be crazy to want to do that. Fortunately, Sol system is inhabited by humans.
  - outworlder 8y ago
    > Why would someone want to move permanently to the Moon? Jobs. Aluminium-based refueling stations? Research? Cheap real state? I don't know, get cheap flights there, and people will find something useful to do.

elorant 8y ago

On the other hand, it's fifty years since we went to Moon and in the meantime we haven't even set-up a tent there. We assume that we'll have the technology for deep space exploration but we tend to forget the logistics nightmare of any such endeavor.

stcredzero 8y ago
On the other hand, it's fifty years since we went to Moon and in the meantime we haven't even set-up a tent there. In the early fits and starts of the exploration of Earth, there were multiple spans of 50 years where progress was seemingly abandoned and nothing happened. We assume that we'll have the technology for deep space exploration but we tend to forget the logistics nightmare of any such endeavor. Environmental technology will be harder than we thought at first, then we'll get the hang of it. Some people will die along the way. Then it will improve exponentially, as economic impetus comes into play.
- GW150914 8y ago
  Environmental technology will be harder than we thought at first, then we'll get the hang of it. Some people will die along the way. Then it will improve exponentially, as economic impetus comes into play. Unless you know a lot that no one serious claims to know, then this is a statement of what you hope for and maybe personally believe, but for which no evidence exists. The sheer bulk of unknown unknowns in environmental tech, not to mention other assumptions you’ve been making about industry in space and more, are too numerous and prevalent to allow for confident statements either way. You may be right that humanity’s destiny is in the far reaches of the solar system, but it could go many other ways. Maybe we’ll die in the dirt, or maybe we’ll thrive in completely different ways. For all that you know, rather than personally wish to believe, our future may more closely resemble something like a Dyson Swarm constructed by drones rather than hurling ourselves into the dim and cold reaches of space. Maybe we’ll figure out a mutually amicable way to control population rates and make the Earth a Paradise, and leave space for robots. Who knows? Not me, not you. All of which is to say, please stop passing off something that is less than a hunch as an argument. The core of science is skepticism and a demand for evidence, while the core of pop science is an inverse relationship between knowledge and enthusiasm. Claiming to know what will happen in 50 years is a joke, in 100 years delusion, and in 1000 years religion. There are so many branches and twists and turns, both positive and negative and just plain unforeseen that futurism is crap.
  - stcredzero 8y ago
    The sheer bulk of unknown unknowns in environmental tech Is why I would bet that lots of people will die while we're getting the hang of it. You may be right that humanity’s destiny is in the far reaches of the solar system, but it could go many other ways. Maybe we’ll die in the dirt Tell you what: If we all end up dead, I'll buy you drinks! But if I'm not wrong, you can owe me my net worth, rounded down to the nearest billion. All of which is to say, please stop passing off something that is less than a hunch as an argument Call it what you like. I call it a conviction. Claiming to know what will happen in 50 years is a joke, in 100 years delusion, and in 1000 years religion. Don't sweat it. I'm not about to judge you morally and strap you to a tree over it. There are so many branches and twists and turns, both positive and negative and just plain unforeseen that futurism is crap. How about, "Science Fiction?"
justinator 8y ago
I think in the 50 years, we've found it's more cost effective with a better return on value (and ultimately safer for all humans involved) to just shoot a robot into space equipped with a camera. The whole Red Scare/Space Domination rhetoric was a Big Thing. The United States was sure that: sending something into space meant you could hit a target anywhere else in the world (with quite a bit of validation). If you do remember, it was because we essentially stole tech/scientists (willingly, or at least intelligently from a political and "i'm going to not be locked up in the gulag" point of view) from the Nazis at the end of the WWII that we were even able to get into space. It was a craaaaaazy time.
- stcredzero 8y ago
  I grew up having nightmares of nuclear holocaust as a child.
outworlder 8y ago
It is more due to politics than engineering or logistics. We should have working linear aerospike engines by now. But that project got cancelled(see X-33). We should have had multiple generations of spaceplanes, one half-assed and costly brick did fly, the other was canceled. Many other promising projects met the same fate. We had time, technology and even the logistics in place for incremental development. Instead, 'we' threw a bunch of money down the drain and have nothing to show for it. So we are back to basics, but at least we made a useful leap forward (SpaceX re-usability). Once costs are low enough, new applications will come up, which may become a self-reinforcing cycle. That's what I hope for, at least.

orbital-decay 8y ago

The Americas were only several months of travel from Europe though, much more desirable and nowhere near as hostile. > The Expanse Science fiction and especially science fantasy tend to be pretty inaccurate when it comes to predicting anything.

stcredzero 8y ago
The Americas were only several months of travel from Europe though, much more desirable and nowhere near as hostile. Scales for all of those things will be far different in space. Venus, Mars, Ceres, and Titan are quite cozy by those standards. Travel to Mars in 3 months may become routine in our lifetimes. Science fiction and especially science fantasy tend to be pretty inaccurate when it comes to predicting anything. Yes. You wouldn't spin Ceres for "gravity" and Epstein drives are just as fantastical as Warp drives if you start to account for waste heat.

0xffff2 8y ago

I've only read the books, not seen the TV version, but the Expanse universe relies on the "Epstein Drive" as a magical plot device to ignore any inconveniences of intra-system travel. This alone makes it pure science-fantasy that is unlikely to happen on any timescale and unsuitable as a guide to what our future holds.

rbanffy 8y ago
The Epstein drive is great for generating gravity directly from acceleration, but electric propulsion that's much less efficient than fiction would be just fine. If you can go to Mars in weeks and to Saturn in months using electric propulsion and a relatively small nuclear power plant on your rotating ship and do multiple trips without the need to stop by a large chunk of ice and hydrocarbons to make more propellant, then the kind of multi-planetary society depicted in The Expanse becomes viable. What it's not is self-starting. Why would someone want to move permanently to the Moon? I can imagine a community starting around scientific research, first government-sponsored, then, maybe, if costs can be driven down enough (thinking SpaceX and lots of hardware reused from previous missions - maybe a couple cyclers that can be replenished/refurbished while in transit) universities in partnership with governments and then, eventually, we'd have critical mass for partners and others unrelated to scientific research to bootstrap a functional society. If manufacturing of equipment can be automated in part and done on the Moon, then using the Moon as a stepping stone to more research on Mars is viable too. In that scenario, I'd consider paying my own ticket. But, still, we need to bootstrap it with a government sponsored research station that can grow into a self-sustaining colony.
- stcredzero 8y ago
  Why would someone want to move permanently to the Moon? You'd have to be crazy to want to do that. Fortunately, Sol system is inhabited by humans.
- outworlder 8y ago
  > Why would someone want to move permanently to the Moon? Jobs. Aluminium-based refueling stations? Research? Cheap real state? I don't know, get cheap flights there, and people will find something useful to do.