5 ms·

This is motivated pessimism. We knew in the 50s that breaking the speed of light was highly unlikely. We dreamed of the stars anyway. Now we refuse to dream, or

This is motivated pessimism. We knew in the 50s that breaking the speed of light was highly unlikely. We dreamed of the stars anyway. Now we refuse to dream, or to even attempt to solve the problems (a common pattern when discussing spaceflight is people who are blatantly searching for problems, rather than solutions), because we are pessimistic, devoid of imagination, and seek to legitimise our collective depression through scientific and engineering arguments.

chasil 8mo ago
I have upvoted you, and perhaps you are right that there are shades of pessimism in this perspective. The 2020s have not been known as reasons for great optimism. The pandemic and AI culling clades of the job market have been traumatizing experiences.
- binary132 8mo ago
  If you think this is something that started in the 2020s you need to review the chart.
krapp 8mo ago
I don't think it's motivated pessimism so much as a shifting tastes and changes in media. There are tons of SF stories with starships in movies, games and streaming platforms. It just happens to be the case that fantasy is more popular then SF at the moment where books are concerned.
echelon 8mo ago
Our astrophysicists don't even know why the universe is expanding, don't know that Lambda CDM is correct, don't know if things are universally consistent, yet we're so damned sure this is it. We don't even know that this isn't a simulation. Not non-falsifiable, sure. But we're convinced we're bound to this solar system with our crude tools and limits of detection. One new instrument could upset our grand understanding and models. Maybe we should wait until they get better hardware to marry ourselves to their prognostications of the end of time. During the postwar years of plenty, people stopped dreaming. We had bold dreams before WWII, but people stopped looking at how far we'd come and started comparing themselves to everyone else. We had no mortal enemy, tremendous wealth, and "keeping up with the Joneses" became the new operating protocol. We have more than we did in the past. The manufacturing wealth of 1940-1970 was a fluke. The trade wealth of 1980-2020 was a fluke. We were upset over an unfair advantage that won't last forever. Even today we're still better off than a hundred years ago, yet everyone focuses on how bad things are. Maybe a return to hardship will make us dream again.
- jfengel 8mo ago
  We do know why the universe is expanding. That's due to general relativity. That's well attested to high confidence. We don't know why the expansion is accelerating. For that we have only speculation.
  - Recurecur 8mo ago
    It’s well understood that the expansion of the universe is not “due to general relativity”. General relativity does explain some details of that expansion.
    - antonvs 8mo ago
      The equations of general relativity fully model the expansion of the universe, so you’d need to explain what you mean.
      - direwolf20 8mo ago
        yeah, that extra bit that Einstein was very embarrassed about having to write, the bit that says "... plus the expansion of the universe" It explains nothing. It's just tacked on the end there.
      - Recurecur 8mo ago
        The expansion of the universe is largely due to the impulse provided by the Big Bang. General Relativity does attempt to explain some details regarding what’s happened after the Big Bang, but provides no insight into the Big Bang itself. Nor does it offer insight into Dark Energy, a concept that Einstein opposed.
  - direwolf20 8mo ago
    The universe is expanding due to general relativity... in the sense that Einstein literally wrote "... plus the expansion of the universe" into his equations.
jfengel 8mo ago
You don't need to break the speed of light to get to the stars. Time dilation and space contraction mean that you can get there in as little time as you desire. Everyone you knew on earth would be dead by the time you got back, but if it's just about you, the speed of light is no limitation at all. (The rocket equation, however, presents stupendous engineering challenges.)
- WJW 8mo ago
  Time dilation and space contraction only matter if you can reasonably achieve speeds of a significant portion of the speed of light. AFAIK nobody has even come up with a reasonable way to achieve this for lightweight probes, let alone for hundred-ton ships capable of carrying humans. And let's not forget the practical problems like all photons incoming from the front being blueshifted into ultrahard radiation that would make a point blank nuclear bomb seem like a small candle. Realistically even getting to the nearest star in less than 400 years experienced time is way way WAY out of reach for now.
  - Rodeoclash 8mo ago
    Laser accelerate a lightweight probe, probe lands on alien planet and self replicates a receiver and basic robot body. Send mind in the form of information at speed of light and download into robot body. Something roughly along these lines was believable enough for the Altered Carbon universe.
    - ThrowawayR2 8mo ago
      "lightweight probe" and "self replicates" don't go together. Nanobots are just as much fantasy physics as FTL is.
      - AlphaAndOmega0 8mo ago
        Nanobots are fantasy? Nobody told your cells or bacteria I guess. We have an existence proof right there.
cindyllm 8mo ago
[dead]
imtringued 8mo ago
That would only rule out stories based on interstellar travel, which is a tiny subset of what you can do in space. After all, you'll just end up inside another solar system that won't be much different from ours. The planets will be in different orbits but there will most likely be an asteroid belt and the effects of temperature will remain the same even if the planets are in different temperature ranges from our planets. If earth is big enough for fantasy, then the solar system is plenty big enough for science fiction. If you wanted to watch hard science fiction I would recommend watching anthrofuturism on YouTube who focuses exclusively on the moon.

chasil 8mo ago

I have upvoted you, and perhaps you are right that there are shades of pessimism in this perspective. The 2020s have not been known as reasons for great optimism. The pandemic and AI culling clades of the job market have been traumatizing experiences.

binary132 8mo ago
If you think this is something that started in the 2020s you need to review the chart.

krapp 8mo ago

I don't think it's motivated pessimism so much as a shifting tastes and changes in media. There are tons of SF stories with starships in movies, games and streaming platforms. It just happens to be the case that fantasy is more popular then SF at the moment where books are concerned.

echelon 8mo ago

Our astrophysicists don't even know why the universe is expanding, don't know that Lambda CDM is correct, don't know if things are universally consistent, yet we're so damned sure this is it. We don't even know that this isn't a simulation. Not non-falsifiable, sure. But we're convinced we're bound to this solar system with our crude tools and limits of detection. One new instrument could upset our grand understanding and models. Maybe we should wait until they get better hardware to marry ourselves to their prognostications of the end of time. During the postwar years of plenty, people stopped dreaming. We had bold dreams before WWII, but people stopped looking at how far we'd come and started comparing themselves to everyone else. We had no mortal enemy, tremendous wealth, and "keeping up with the Joneses" became the new operating protocol. We have more than we did in the past. The manufacturing wealth of 1940-1970 was a fluke. The trade wealth of 1980-2020 was a fluke. We were upset over an unfair advantage that won't last forever. Even today we're still better off than a hundred years ago, yet everyone focuses on how bad things are. Maybe a return to hardship will make us dream again.

jfengel 8mo ago
We do know why the universe is expanding. That's due to general relativity. That's well attested to high confidence. We don't know why the expansion is accelerating. For that we have only speculation.
- Recurecur 8mo ago
  It’s well understood that the expansion of the universe is not “due to general relativity”. General relativity does explain some details of that expansion.
  - antonvs 8mo ago
    The equations of general relativity fully model the expansion of the universe, so you’d need to explain what you mean.
    - direwolf20 8mo ago
      yeah, that extra bit that Einstein was very embarrassed about having to write, the bit that says "... plus the expansion of the universe" It explains nothing. It's just tacked on the end there.
    - Recurecur 8mo ago
      The expansion of the universe is largely due to the impulse provided by the Big Bang. General Relativity does attempt to explain some details regarding what’s happened after the Big Bang, but provides no insight into the Big Bang itself. Nor does it offer insight into Dark Energy, a concept that Einstein opposed.
- direwolf20 8mo ago
  The universe is expanding due to general relativity... in the sense that Einstein literally wrote "... plus the expansion of the universe" into his equations.

jfengel 8mo ago

You don't need to break the speed of light to get to the stars. Time dilation and space contraction mean that you can get there in as little time as you desire. Everyone you knew on earth would be dead by the time you got back, but if it's just about you, the speed of light is no limitation at all. (The rocket equation, however, presents stupendous engineering challenges.)

WJW 8mo ago
Time dilation and space contraction only matter if you can reasonably achieve speeds of a significant portion of the speed of light. AFAIK nobody has even come up with a reasonable way to achieve this for lightweight probes, let alone for hundred-ton ships capable of carrying humans. And let's not forget the practical problems like all photons incoming from the front being blueshifted into ultrahard radiation that would make a point blank nuclear bomb seem like a small candle. Realistically even getting to the nearest star in less than 400 years experienced time is way way WAY out of reach for now.
- Rodeoclash 8mo ago
  Laser accelerate a lightweight probe, probe lands on alien planet and self replicates a receiver and basic robot body. Send mind in the form of information at speed of light and download into robot body. Something roughly along these lines was believable enough for the Altered Carbon universe.
  - ThrowawayR2 8mo ago
    "lightweight probe" and "self replicates" don't go together. Nanobots are just as much fantasy physics as FTL is.
    - AlphaAndOmega0 8mo ago
      Nanobots are fantasy? Nobody told your cells or bacteria I guess. We have an existence proof right there.

cindyllm 8mo ago

[dead]

imtringued 8mo ago

That would only rule out stories based on interstellar travel, which is a tiny subset of what you can do in space. After all, you'll just end up inside another solar system that won't be much different from ours. The planets will be in different orbits but there will most likely be an asteroid belt and the effects of temperature will remain the same even if the planets are in different temperature ranges from our planets. If earth is big enough for fantasy, then the solar system is plenty big enough for science fiction. If you wanted to watch hard science fiction I would recommend watching anthrofuturism on YouTube who focuses exclusively on the moon.