Is probably more how it's gonna go down.THe world should just stop bickerin with each other over useless shit and start bickering over who gets to rule the new planet
Correct. Which is why we'd need a different form of propulsion.With our current speed limit it would take us like 10-20 years just to get out of the solar system.
Best would be if there would be an hostile Alien race.so we can eradicate em. For "Mankind"Is probably more how it's gonna go down.
Seriously can you imagine the battle over who gets what on a new planet? Yikes.
Best would be if there would be an hostile Alien race.so we can eradicate em. For "Mankind"
/sarcasm
Nooooooooo! We can't be! We are the good guys! Have you never seen a movie?WE are the hostile Alien race.
I disagree with this. With the moon we run into the facts that:Hey let's maybe get back to the moon first.
Is probably more how it's gonna go down.
Seriously can you imagine the battle over who gets what on a new planet? Yikes.
Not to be a party-pooper, but reading the article on the details of the planet, we're looking at:
-twice Earth's gravity
-perpetual murky red twilight on one side of the planet
-nothing but night on the other side, because this planet apparently has one side always facing its sun and the other facing away
-nothing about land mass, just water so far
-mostly CO2 atmosphere, in which we would suffocate
Are you on crack? Do you know how far 20 LY is? The fastest manned flight ever was Apollo 10 @ like 24k mph it would take a half million years to get there. Even at 1000x THAT speed 24 million miles an hour ( which is 3.5% the speed of light) it would take like 550 years. We will NOT be able to travel at even double Apollo 10 within 2-3 generations with out killing people due to acceleration G forces, unless some majorly, majorly, MAJORLY HUGE fundamental physics findings are made in the near future. I'm talking about as major a leap as it was to get from alchemy to quantum physics. We are no where near understanding how the universe (or even gravity) works for that matter, and the universe is a HUGE place.Could it be true? Could we conceivably find another planet to colonize in my kids' or grandkids' lifetimes?
http://dvice.com/archives/2011/05/gliese-581d-con.php
Hey Congress! Stop being fuckwits and FUND THIS SHIT!
Any feasible manned inner and extra solar travel (like Mars) will have to involve launching from the moon with current technology. Before we can even think of inter stellar travel, we need to be able to colonize in orbit around our planet, the Moon, Mars, and possibly Jovian moons. I don't think you appreciate just how hard it is for NASA to just launch the Space Shuttle and coordinate unmanned space exploration. Rocket science ain't easy like brain surgery.I disagree with this. With the moon we run into the facts that:
Disregarding the fact that both of these statements are amazingly short-sighted and wrong, it is the commonly held belief by the people with whom we need to convince - i.e. Congressmen. But they are too busy trying to become wealthier and to kowtow to their constituents (and by that I mean the business interests who have purchased their votes).
- Been there. Done that.
- It's only rocks, anyway.
But a new planet with the possibility of sustaining life and possibly having abundant minerals or new items to discover? Well, sir, now you are talking!
But what about when the sun dies! Noooooooo...Your grand, or great grand, or great great grandchildren will NOT be colonizing this planet. We stand a better chance of terraforming a planet in our own solar system before we reach this one, unless there's a sudden breakthrough in space folding.
Our current best estimate is that the sun will burn out in about 5 billion years. What a coincidence.But what about when the sun dies! Noooooooo...
I see what you did there.Does this mean I can stop all this stupid recycling bullshit?
Like I said I don't think the tech is going to advance enough to ever see it happen in our lifetime. Manipulating space-time and gravity is a mighty leap. To be honest right now, it's like a caveman trying to build a computer.See, I know the math. I also know that currently it would take a couple hundred THOUSAND years to get there. But that's using current technology and not gaining any new. What I'm saying is that this is the perfect carrot to put on the stick for the politicians to refund the space program.
Actually, we can travel faster in space these days, or could if we just threw enough money at the issue. If we really wanted to we could get up to speeds much faster than were used to get the moon, but it would either involve high risk or lots of money/resources (just build a bigger ship that carries more fuel and accelerate longer). There are also various propulsion systems that are in development that promise to provide much more efficient propulsion as well, without the great risk (nuclear pulse propulsion) or cost (conventional chemical propulsion). If ion propulsion pans out it will be roughly 10 times the efficiency of chemical propellants.That means, at current propulsion levels (and I don't think we travel a whole lot faster in space these days)
Just think, in about 200,000 years that's what people will think of us!
Yeah except it'll take a whole shitload of fuel and a shit load of time to accelerate at levels low enough not to kill a person. Realistically you can't have a person even doing 2 g's for like 10 years.Actually, we can travel faster in space these days, or could if we just threw enough money at the issue. If we really wanted to we could get up to speeds much faster than were used to get the moon, but it would either involve high risk or lots of money/resources (just build a bigger ship that carries more fuel and accelerate longer). There are also various propulsion systems that are in development that promise to provide much more efficient propulsion as well, without the great risk (nuclear pulse propulsion) or cost (conventional chemical propulsion). If ion propulsion pans out it will be roughly 10 times the efficiency of chemical propellants.
If we did build a ship to go to another star, it would be going faster than when we went to the moon.
What I'm hoping is that biotech and physics advances enough that we can simply upload our very consciousness into a collective thought "cloud", and manipulate it somehow as an EM signal. Then (according to relativity), if your conscious mind is zipping around as a light particle you'll pretty much be able to experience anywhere you want to go in an instant; possibly upload your conscious mind in a body 1 billion light years away. Of course, in the mean time, on Earth, your "lifeless" body will sit around relative to observers for a billion years or so. Really, I think that's going to be the secret to the immortality of humanity (if we even make it to that point). The whole concept raises tons of questions fundamentally to the point of what it even means to be human.Hey, if the singularity is right around the corner, it won't matter how long it takes.
I'm not saying that the difference is enough to make the trip feasible, just that Gas's assumptions that we can't travel faster than we did to the moon are wrong.Yeah except it'll take a whole shitload of fuel and a shit load of time to accelerate at levels low enough not to kill a person. Realistically you can't have a person even doing 2 g's for like 10 years.
A similar idea was briefly explored in part of Asimov's short story The Last Question, which everyone should read.What I'm hoping is that biotech and physics advances enough that we can simply upload our very consciousness into a collective thought "cloud", and manipulate it somehow as an EM signal. Then (according to relativity), if your conscious mind is zipping around as a light particle you'll pretty much be able to experience anywhere you want to go in an instant; possibly upload your conscious mind in a body 1 billion light years away. Of course, in the mean time, on Earth, your "lifeless" body will sit around relative to observers for a billion years or so. Really, I think that's going to be the secret to the immortality of humanity (if we even make it to that point). The whole concept raises tons of questions fundamentally to the point of what it even means to be human.
And, no, you assholes can't steal this as a novel plot device. I'm already well on my way using it in my own sci fi novel.
Well, I think he was referencing current manned space flight. But that's why I included a further example for my model. Even if you could Jimmy a way to go 1000x faster than Apollo 10, you'd still require 550 years to get there. You'd essentially need a self-sustained ark for that kind of trip. Remember 550 years is a long time too. 550 years ago, the Ottoman empire was in full swing taking over most of the civilized world.I'm not saying that the difference is enough to make the trip feasible, just that Gas's assumptions that we can't travel faster than we did to the moon are wrong.
Yeah, is there anything Asimov hasn't done? He's like the fucking HP Lovecraft of science fiction. SIMPSONS' DID IT! And incidentally, that short story is one of the things that helped me to draw inspiration for my own.A similar idea was briefly explored in part of Asimov's short story The Last Question, which everyone should read.
ftfyA similar idea was briefly explored in part of Asimov's short story The Last Question, which everyone should read.
I remember reading about nuclear pulse propulsion in Footfall, published in 1985. Granted, it wasn't used to travel to Jupiter, but it did power the craft that fought off an invasion of evil elephants.I miss the old 1960's science books I had as a child. The plan to make the trip to Jupiter at a higher velocity was to take a couple of atom bombs into space. The eject an atom bomb into a rocket cone at the far, far end of the craft and detonate... ZOOM! off you go...
Heh, well if that's the only way to get to the stars then I'm gonna have to refuse. Call me old-fashioned, but I prefer this glorified sausage we call the human body over some weird-ass collective mind or being slapped into a metal/plastic body that's probably operating on a system made by the lowest bidder I have infinite faith in the human capacity to muck things up, including but not limited to someone introducing the newly-formed group mind to Goatse.What I'm hoping is that biotech and physics advances enough that we can simply upload our very consciousness into a collective thought "cloud", and manipulate it somehow as an EM signal. Then (according to relativity), if your conscious mind is zipping around as a light particle you'll pretty much be able to experience anywhere you want to go in an instant; possibly upload your conscious mind in a body 1 billion light years away. Of course, in the mean time, on Earth, your "lifeless" body will sit around relative to observers for a billion years or so. Really, I think that's going to be the secret to the immortality of humanity (if we even make it to that point). The whole concept raises tons of questions fundamentally to the point of what it even means to be human.
And, no, you assholes can't steal this as a novel plot device. I'm already well on my way using it in my own sci fi novel.
This. In fact, here's a link. Anyone who hasn't read it, drop what you're doing and read it NOW.A similar idea was briefly explored in part of Asimov's short story The Last Question, which everyone should read.
Don't worry... I'm sure they'll be able to upload your consciousness into a newly cloned organic body if that's your thing... just so you can continue to enjoy the pantless pleasures of the sauna...Heh, well if that's the only way to get to the stars then I'm gonna have to refuse. Call me old-fashioned, but I prefer this glorified sausage we call the human body over some weird-ass collective mind or being slapped into a metal/plastic body that's probably operating on a system made by the lowest bidder I have infinite faith in the human capacity to muck things up, including but not limited to someone introducing the newly-formed group mind to Goatse.
That was really a great little short story... makes you think...This. In fact, here's a link. Anyone who hasn't read it, drop what you're doing and read it NOW.
This sounds like a planet designed by Larry Niven.Not to be a party-pooper, but reading the article on the details of the planet, we're looking at:
-twice Earth's gravity
-perpetual murky red twilight on one side of the planet
-nothing but night on the other side, because this planet apparently has one side always facing its sun and the other facing away
-nothing about land mass, just water so far
-mostly CO2 atmosphere, in which we would suffocate
Still, for me it'd be exciting just to find out about animal or plant life on another planet.
Well, Prince of Space had that race of chicken men that had mastered space travel yet had the need of invading Earth for our rocket fuel.Saying anything like "current rate of tech development" or "caveman building a computer" is flawed, though. The underlying assumptions are that technology is one thread, and that it's monotonically increasing, neither of which is true. If you drew a graph of tech development in, say, sensor development, the chart would be all over the place. Radar would leap the curve ahead in the 40s by some monstrous amount, only to have the curve backtrack right after that.
Which, Mathias, brings me to a sci-fi story idea I've had: stop assuming all tech develops at the same rate. Have an alien race show up on earth with crudely engineered but highly advanced FTL engines, but horrible computer systems (if even present at all--maybe they navigate by eye). If you think that's impossible, look up some of the mechanical wonders from the time before computers took over all those tasks right here on earth.
I saw Space Cowboys too!Saying anything like "current rate of tech development" or "caveman building a computer" is flawed, though. The underlying assumptions are that technology is one thread, and that it's monotonically increasing, neither of which is true. If you drew a graph of tech development in, say, sensor development, the chart would be all over the place. Radar would leap the curve ahead in the 40s by some monstrous amount, only to have the curve backtrack right after that.
Which, Mathias, brings me to a sci-fi story idea I've had: stop assuming all tech develops at the same rate. Have an alien race show up on earth with crudely engineered but highly advanced FTL engines, but horrible computer systems (if even present at all--maybe they navigate by eye). If you think that's impossible, look up some of the mechanical wonders from the time before computers took over all those tasks right here on earth.
I don't get it.I saw Space Cowboys too!
In that movie, Clint Eastwood, Tommy Lee Jones and the other geezers were sent into space because there's a Russian satellite in need of repair that used stolen propulsion technology designed by Eastwood. The other engineers can't do anything because the tech is so old and the satellite is apparently essential to all Russian communications (though there's a rather stupid "twist" reason) so there's no choice but to send a bunch of old guys into space.I don't get it.
Added at: 23:19
(Never saw that movie--that's probably why.)
No the satellite is told to be a communications satellite with a decaying orbit, but in reality it's an orbiting nuclear arsenal.In that movie, Clint Eastwood, Tommy Lee Jones and the other geezers were sent into space because there's a Russian satellite in need of repair that used stolen propulsion technology designed by Eastwood. The other engineers can't do anything because the tech is so old and the satellite is apparently essential to all Russian communications (though there's a rather stupid "twist" reason) so there's no choice but to send a bunch of old guys into space.