I foresee a major problem with deep space exploration: assuming that you need to hibernate ~100s of years to reach anywhere that can sustain life, there is no way that the space traveller can guarantee a payment in the future for for their work. By the time you return the company or government that sent you could be bankrupt or non-existing.
Also, even you have a payer, there is no way to negotiate a fair salary ahead of time. If you peg it on a resource which is found in space, the value may drop unexpectedly. And during the AI age the average salary could not mean very much (when basic products can be mass produced for almost free, while those that require still uncopied human skills may inflate hugely in value).
Unless you are looking to hibernate for free and in the relative safety of space, I don’t really see a reason why anyone would go.
I think there is a big difference between the case when it is not practical to return to Earth (due to fuel etc constraints), and the case that it is possible. If it is not possible a few people may go for the “adventure”, but if it is possible then I feel like the proposition would just seem like a loss.
Any trips that take 100s of years are probably going to be one-way colonization or nomadic expeditions, probably by large groups. They wouldn’t be expecting to get paid by anybody.
Send only criminals, either go or be executed. Similar to how they sent criminals to Australia and New Zealand. I don’t know, I think I would choose to go.
Of the myriad of reasons that crewed interstellar exporation is manifestly unlikely without some radical advances in basic physics, the issue of compensation is about the least problematic. The biggest fundamental hurdles beyond developing some kind of propulsion system capable of accelerating a large vehicle to even the fraction of a percent of c that it would take to reach the stars in the local neighborhood within a few centuries and then decelerate to planetary speeds without enormously unrealistic propellant mass ratios are creating both habitat and power systems that can operate for that duration without resupply or major overhaul, recycling enough material in a closed system to make surviving the journey possible, protecting the spacecraft and occupants from highly energetic cosmic radiation, and most critically, radiating away the excess waste heat from the propulsion and power systems so that it doesn’t build up and make the spacecraft uninhabitable. There is the notion that if a crew can be put into some kind of biological stasis it would alleviate these issues but setting aside the issues with retarding or stopping metabolic function at the cellular level for decades or centuries without seriously damaging the functioning of the body, even just the waste heat from running minimal power systems would require massive outward facing radiator area.
Existing robotic spacecraft work because they use very low power radioisotope thermoelectric generators that are mounted well outward of the main spacecraft, and energetic operations such as propulsion or transmission are planned to minimize waste heat production to levels that the spacecraft can radiate naturally or by use of onboard heat exchangers and radiating surfaces. One of the biggest challenges with nuclear thermal rocket engines of even modest specific impulse capability is that they cannot operate long before heat buildup is great enough to damage the powerplant and propulsion systems.
Darren Garrison is correct; the exploration of interstellar space is really only practical for the foreseeable future via robotic probes and landers. Even exploring solid planets and moons within our solar system with material resources such as Mars, Titan, or Enceledus, while conceivable with some optimistic advances in propulsion, power, and habitat technology, is made vastly more complex, expensive, and risky by the addition of a human crew in-situ. For the cost of a single crewed Mars ground mission (~US$500B and up for a 4 to 6 person conjunction class mission to a single landing site) we could literally saturate the planet at every latitude and site of interest with rovers and probes, with robotic sample return and a large infrastructure for communication and climate surveillance, and the loss of an individual mission wouldn’t doom the overall program to risk of cancellation. Realisitic crewed exploration will probably require some radical changes to the human form to make it more robust to the space environment which overshadow concerns about how explorers are incentivized or compensated for their risk and effort.
I suspect a lot of people would be willing to volunteer, if only for the “because it’s there” factor. The problem is, how do you get the information back?
Of course, first you have to solve the other problem - how do you slow down the aging process?
I have loved ones; not a lot and no kids but I am far from alone. I am a little adventuresome but not terribly so; I ride motorcycles but have no interest in swimming or mountain climbing.
One way trip and possibly to no good purpose? I’m interested and more than just a little. I’ve looked up and been curious enough that I think I would maybe take a shot at it. Screw the money; its just not part of the equation for me. I figure tech and/or society could both advance enough (or all life on Earth could end) that it would all be a moot point.
I would question whether economics as I understand it today would even exist by the time I get back, to be honest.
Space exploration is probably a lot less interesting, in the long run, than the chance to get back and experience the future (assuming Earth isn’t a nuclear wasteland). The most you can hope out of space exploration is discovering new types of rock and - if you’re really really really really lucky - space algae. Getting back to the Earth though, who knows what all could have changed. You may as well compare it to discovering nirvana or having an out of body experience, depending on how far civilization has advanced.
Well, spell it out for me: let’s say, as cochrane does, that it’s someone who’s been sentenced to life imprisonment; or say – as you did – that it’s someone who’s been sentenced to death. That part already happened, right? That’s not the part raising a red flag about the Constitution or rights or cruelty or unusuality.
So what happens if, some time after that point, you stroll in and say “oh, hey, either you keep on keeping on with the no-red-flags deal you’ve already got, or you accept this here offer which I am right now making, whadayasay?”
Before hearing that, he was in a situation that could be summed up as, oh, say, “X”. And I’m not sure how good his situation is after hearing that – but since he can reply with a “You Got Yourself A Deal” or a “Naw, This Is Preferable To That,” then isn’t his new situation “Better Than X” at best, or “Still Just X” at worst?
They weren’t given that choice in Beckdawrek’s hypothetical. The way she presented it, it was either go to space, or die, without due process of law. There was no upside to refusing.
No, I would expect that they would be sentenced to death, and given an alternative. Of course , But not if you had another chance at reprieve or a new appeals trial. This would only be for those already on death row, or something like that. I can’t really see it being feasible, just thinking out loud.
The old joke about driving across Kansas is it’s miles and miles of nothing but miles and miles.
Space exploration, on the other hand, would be light years and light years of nothing but light years and light years.
Now, I don’t mind looking at the high plains for a few hours, but I don’t see any appeal in looking at space for years/decades/who knows how long.
Or, as Douglas Adams put it, “Space is big. You just won’t believe how vastly, hugely, mind-bogglingly big it is. I mean, you may think it’s a long way down the road to the chemist’s, but that’s just peanuts to space.”
By the time this happens, we are likely to be in a post-scarcity economy. Money is not required for basic goods and services, and nobody in such a society is be motivated by “getting paid” in the current sense. The opportunity for rare and unusual experiences will certainly still have value, however. To the extent that the experience is interesting, people will choose to go; if it it is not, we will use AI and robots.