I’m addressing Hawking’s comments that we need to develop this technology so we can escape the Earth.
So we have to take a stab at predicting when the two things will occur. Which of these will happen first?
I’m stating only the very optimistic believe the ability to escape will happen before the need to do so.
Nuts to that.
You’re overstating the case.
We could use existing technology to go intersteller right now, if we had to.
The “nuclear putt-putt” starship. The one with atom bombs for an engine?
I don’t have a link, but could somebody provide one?
Orion is the one I think you mean. If we needed to get up quick and dirty I’m fairly sure it would work and could be done…though the cost would be huge.
And you are right…he’s definitely overstating the case…if anything the analogy tips the other way. After all, WE know you CAN go into space, we know the distances involved and have a grasp on most of the problems involved, we know you CAN land on other planets, and we even know that there are worlds that circle distant suns. In the 1800’s the concept of powered flight was much less understood. They didn’t know what it would take (or if it could be done), didn’t understand most of the problems involved, didn’t even have an internal combustion engine concept to power the thing (although they understood the steam engine I suppose). I’d say its a pretty good analogy.
The analogy about going back 20,000 years however and discussing rocket design is, well, ridiculous in comparison to today and the concept of intersteller travel. It doesn’t hold at all.
-XT
Bosda, you are thinking of the Orion Project or Nuclear pulse propulsion.
This would not get a living population of humans to the stars. Why would you think it would? You still need food, life support, redundant systems, a dust shield and hundreds if not thousands of other little things that would all add up to a failed mission.
Jim
That is just plain nutty. We could send a craft out to crash into a star thousands of years into the future but it wouldn’t have any people on it. You are ignoring so many open issues it is astounding. We can’t even keep people alive in space long enough to get past Mars at this point no matter how badly we want to. People need food and air and water and small luxuries like clothes and medicine. We can’t create a tiny little world that will sustain people for a by itself for a few years let alone hundreds or thousands. I think you need to seriously sit down and think about everything involved and realize that a failure of even one of them equals failure for the whole mission and this ignores things like human lifespans.
No but looking back at the early coats hugging travel of the ancient Mediterranean does. We are restricted to low energy levels and extended travel times. We are limited to what we can carry the need to exploit the local environment to re-supply the crew and ship.
However, unlike then, we know we can directly improve on what we have. We won’t be stuck with oars and square sails for millennia. Unless we choose to not even try.
Stellar exploration will have to remain the area of probes and vast arrays of space based telescopes until we learn more.
I guess another way to put it might be - this solar system probably isnt going anywhere for several hundred million years or more.
Why does it comfort people to think we could last for say billions of years instead of hundreds of millions of years if we can go interstellar? At the end of the day humanity will end because the universe will eventually end according to current theory, and the timescales involved regarding human ‘survival’ are unimaginable with any of these figures.
I put most of this down to grief that Star Trek isnt going to be a reality.
Otara
We’re working on the human lifespan. We don’t need to make a perfect little world, we just need one that works well enough… it may take constant tinkering and adjustment but I am convinced that it can be done. It would seem to me that the key is to make the craft adaptable and give it as much onboard capability to alter and adjust itself as possible. Don’t just give it a water tank, give it water, metals, carbon, the tools to make the tools to make a new water tank, computers with information on how to do all of this, put people on board skilled in problem solving and engineering and I am confident that any problems could be solved en route. Then make a thousand of them. One will get there. The ones that don’t will die having tried, instead of dying here having never done more than say “it can’t be done”… as has been pointed out, we’re all going to die anyway so what’s the problem?
Interesting theory, but what if in addition to being a bunch of foolish Trekkies, maybe we do not see the long term survival of the human race as guaranteed as war or environmental disaster might wipe out current civilization. To strive towards space and to strive towards the stars provides us with a peaceful reason to continue to pursue new technologies and explore the physical universe.
If we take your logic too far, it could be argued that we should stop wasting time and money on building very large particle accelerators or Very Large Array Radio Telescopes. Why do we need to know about sub-atomic particles, the nature of the universe, explore the building of tiny black holes? Who cares about fusion research for that matter, it has already taken fifty years and we still are far off. Why not just reinvest that money in existing working technologies.
Jim
**Shag ** was responding in this case to **Bosda ** sating we could do it now with today’s technology. I believe **Shag ** was correct in this case.
Just to be clear here…are you saying it absolutely could not be done with todays technology regardless of cost, or that it would be extremely difficult, risky and expensive, too difficult, risky and expensive to have any realisitic chance of being done? Those are two different things and just trying to be clear here before I got off on a huge explaination on how it COULD be done with todays technology…if cost and risk were no object.
-XT
Conceptually, I understand the quantum leap from intra-solar system travel to interstellar travel and the fool’s game of predicting specific technological breakthroughs. However, I have faith that our species will colonize the stars, or die trying.
It’s interesting to note that most of us care whether, and how our species lives on into the distant future. It seems to me as though the process of evolutionary selection has not only refined and assured propagation of our DNA, but has also developed consciousnesses that care about the propagation of future DNA generations. Perhaps this is a driving force behind our will to explore new frontiers for the benefit of progeny.
While “if there’s a will” does not guarantee that “there’s a way”, you certainly need a will in order to have any chance of finding a way as laden with engineering and physical hurdles as interstellar space travel. Luckily, a strong will to go forth and expand frontiers is inherent in our species—seemingly coded in our DNA. Our species has done quite well pushing boundaries fueled by will alone. Factor “need” into the equation, and we are capable of pushing boundaries even further and faster. It’s a safe bet to assume that as time progresses, we will be driven more and more strongly by the “need” to get off planet earth and find refuge in more habitable environs.
Will + Need = Strong Will.
Given the resources available to us on earth and the combined and aggregating brainpower of our species, is interstellar travel possible from an engineering, physical and biological standpoint? Yes, it is. (Proof? No, just blind faith). Trying to guess specifics with regard to future technology, fuel consumption issues and other steps needed toward achieving interstellar travel is where the fool’s game enters the picture, IMO. I’m confident that the physics or technological breakthroughs that eventually get us to the stars will be ones inconceivable to us now. I believe history backs up that premise. The important question is, “does our species have enough time to develop the means for interstellar travel?” Yes, it does. (Again, blind faith.)
Years to Develop Star Travel = “x”
Years to Extinction or Extinguishment of Human Life on Earth = “y”
As long as “y” > “x”, we’ll get there.
I’m probably more pessimistic than most of you with regard to estimating “x”. I think it will take hundreds of thousands of years to develop interstellar space travel. Conversely, I’m probably more optimistic than most of you with regard to “y”. I have faith that homeostatic processes will keep us on earth for hundreds of thousands (+) years.
I won’t venture a guess as to the technology that will be employed to get us to the stars. (Well, ok, I will: it will involve bosons, bamboo and broccoli juice—that’s all I’m willing to say for now, lest I jeopardize my chances for the Nobel Prize in Physics). I do, however believe the process of multi-generational travel will be involved. I used to poo poo the idea of convincing people to board a space ship knowing they wouldn’t live long enough to reach final destination. Then I read about this:
Dingy
I began to realize that the destination of a vehicle may be “one of” rather than “the only” or even “the prime” important missions of a traveling community. Early generations aboard a star ship may think of landing on a planet as being an abstract, or at least wistful future concept. (Yes, Billy, someday people like us may set foot on a planet, though with all that dirt, dust and mud, I don’t know why you’d want to… now go play your your Playstation 235,6354).
I don’t think the ability to escape implies moving everyone off the Earth. The continued existence of humanity, with a large enough gene pool, is quite sufficient.
Nuclear war can happen any time, or never. A major asteroid strike is unlikely for quite some time. I’m more worried about environmental damage myself. But a century or two should be plenty adequate for self sustaining colonies inside the solar system, which will protect us against any eventuality except the Sun becoming a red giant - and we’ve got lots of time before that happens. I’m not counting self-destruction, of course.
When we can move to the stars depends on the technology we develop for space living, and any guess is purely random at this point.
Well that would be silly wouldnt it? Im arguing for a sense of proportion, not to have no dreams at all. Sure if fusion works out to be easier than thought and we make some big jumps in tech etc etc, Im all for it.
Im just saying I dont think interstellar travel is the certainty some people here seem to think it is, and I think we’ll be OK in the grand scheme of things if that turns out to be so.
Otara
Actually it is an S curve. A breakthrough, followed by a period of working on the technology and getting early adopters, then steep growth and development as improvements are made, then stasis as the improvements become incremental. We’re still stuck in the early adopter stage for space, things will really change when people make money off of it.
I am saying that there is virtually no chance of succeeding with today’s tech. The engineering issues are enormous. As I h ate to use the word never, I will concede that if we were faced with the sudden discovery that the Sun was going Nova, maybe we could work towards build a handful of truly massive starships (or Arks if we are going this far out) to have a small chance of making it to another star with habitable planets.
By today, do you mean, we have only 2 years to get this done or 20 years to get this done?
Otara: Ok, that is fine.
Jim
I’m glad I was able to start such a great thread! I agree with Hawking, lokij, What Exit? and others upthread as to humanity’s eventual destiny out among the stars. I’m well aware of the absolutely enormous, seemingly-insurmountable technological barriers to interstellar travel, but remember that we went from Kitty Hawk to Tranquility Base in just 66 years. I’m convinced that where there’s a will, there’s a way, given time and resources and human ingenuity. Every amazing scientific advancement is impossible… until it’s not. It might not happen for a looooooooooong time, but I think it will happen. We’d better get started on it, though, because we’ve pretty much been treading water on manned space exploration since the last Apollo mission.
But the biggest challenge is finding a way to make money on space. You can’t expect people to go live there only for the sake of “racial survival” – that’s the reason why the other guy should be colonizing space.
Recent IMHO thread of some relevance: “Why would anyone want to live on the Moon?”
Anyway, we need to colonize the Solar System first, then we can think about the stars.
This wasn’t addressed to me, but came up as a result of some comments I made, so I’ll provide my answer.
We could not do this today nor in the next 100 years, regardless of the cost involved. No way, no how. I’m talking about getting a pair of live fertile humans to the nearest star, by the way.