Interstellar Travel

[viktor19]

Even if we have technology which we don't it's still hardly possible. There must be economic reasons behind it. We haven't even explored the Solar system. There are centuries of work ahead just to explore the neighboring space. Then, perhaps, we might be in position to start thinking about interstellar travel.

We need a new Space Race...

[Jonboy]

We need a new Space Race...

What we really need is an Earth Race. While colonization and interstellar travel are appealing, especially to those who are fascinated by space travel, as all of us are, the technology is centuries away, in my opinion. The Space Race resulted in some amazing engineering feats, and did result in some great technological innovations, our real focus in the 21st century should be developing technology to stabilize our own planet.

There is no realistic scenario where we colonize other planets, whether inside or outside of our own solar system, within this century. Yet all science points to significant and catastrophic man-made climate change on our own planet well before then.

While interstellar travel may be possible, it is astoundingly difficult. If it is possible and profitable, I have no doubt that our species (or whatever evolutionary ancestors are around at that time) will pursue it and accomplish it. But focusing on manned interstellar (or even interplanetary) travel when we can't guarantee the survival of modern civilization in this century is astoundingly foolish.

Apparently, most nations do not take impending climate change seriously enough to create real solutions before it might be too late. Perhaps if the danger becomes real enough to enough people, there will be a rush to innovate and solve these problems. Interstellar travel (which is, I would estimate, tens of centuries away) will not solve these issues.

[dansmithers]

Well, if Kurzweil is correct, we'll have manned* interstellar travel in less than 100 years**.

*for certain definitions of manned

**10 thousand year travel time notwithstanding

[baggers]

Well, if Kurzweil is correct, we'll have manned* interstellar travel in less than 100 years**.

*for certain definitions of manned

**10 thousand year travel time notwithstanding

Is a cryogenic coffin(*) and an automated pilot technically "manned"?

* technologically assisted tardigrade-like cryptobiotic state.

- - - Updated - - -

Note that it is a sort of travel that mean you write your last wills before.

Not only because is dangerous but because you will never return, and all your relateds will be dead long before you wake up (apart the ones that sleep with you): better make your affairs in order.

10.000 years is a very long times for humans: maybe nobody will remember your name on on earth, or even your mission. Or even be able to speak the curious dead language you actually speak.

Edited May 26, 2015 by baggers

[Camacha]

Not only because is dangerous but because you will never return, and all your relateds will be dead long before you wake up (apart the ones that sleep with you): better make your affairs in order.

10.000 years is a very long times for humans: maybe nobody will remember your name on on earth, or even your mission. Or even be able to speak the curious dead language you actually speak.

That might be a good scenario, actually. One of the biggest threats I see in space colonisation is animosity between the different places. Separate humans for any period of time and they will start resenting each other (Earth colonies show this decently well) It might be better to have a backup human source pool squirrelled away somewhere without even remembering where or how. Even if we or something else destroys us utterly, the saga continuous.

[baggers]

I wondering if I can have cash-back for theses pension contributions before boarding...

[Nibb31]

That might be a good scenario, actually. One of the biggest threats I see in space colonisation is animosity between the different places. Separate humans for any period of time and they will start resenting each other (Earth colonies show this decently well) It might be better to have a backup human source pool squirrelled away somewhere without even remembering where or how. Even if we or something else destroys us utterly, the saga continuous.

Why? Nothing lives forever. When we're gone, we're gone. Something else will exist somewhere else in space and time, but whether that something shares heritage with our species or not doesn't make any difference.

I can understand the quest for immortality on an individual basis, as long as you're enjoying life, but for a species it doesn't make sense. Once you're dead, you won't care about being dead. As for hypothetical unborn descendants of our species, they won't be disappointed by the fact they will never exist. Nobody is going to judge an extinct Humanity, or assign us some sort of high-score for acheivements. Either we evolve into something better suited to whatever our environment becomes, or we go extinct. There is no success or failure in evolution because nature has no sense of right or wrong. However, nature hates vacuum, so if we disappear, something else will eventually come along and fill our niche.

In other words, it really doesn't matter if Humanity survives. We aren't special snowflakes when it comes to the laws of nature and evolution. There is no such thing as destiny and we don't deserve anything special.

[baggers]

Why? Nothing lives forever. When we're gone, we're gone. Something else will exist somewhere else in space and time, but whether that something shares heritage with our species or not doesn't make any difference.

I can understand the quest for immortality on an individual basis, as long as you're enjoying life, but for a species it doesn't make sense. Once you're dead, you won't care about being dead. As for hypothetical unborn descendants of our species, they won't be disappointed by the fact they will never exist. Nobody is going to judge an extinct Humanity, or assign us some sort of high-score for acheivements. Either we evolve into something better suited to whatever our environment becomes, or we go extinct. There is no success or failure in evolution because nature has no sense of right or wrong. However, nature hates vacuum, so if we disappear, something else will eventually come along and fill our niche.

In other words, it really doesn't matter if Humanity survives. We aren't special snowflakes when it comes to the laws of nature and evolution. There is no such thing as destiny and we don't deserve anything special.

I disagree, beacause humanity isn't alone.

We have a symbiotic companion.

It's called Culture and History.

Every man take is own culture and history from these symbiotic entity, and pull back something to it.

"Humanity" itself don't really matter, I agree. But our "symbiotic companion", first only a oral one, today a numeric one, can live way longer than humans, probably even with non-humans followers.

At a side note, this symbiotic companion of humanity is actually the symbiotic one of the earth and all life on earth too. (the only one know of earth, in fact)

Edited May 26, 2015 by baggers

[Camacha]

In other words, it really doesn't matter if Humanity survives. We aren't special snowflakes when it comes to the laws of nature and evolution. There is no such thing as destiny and we don't deserve anything special.

That is a great story, except that the survival of the individual and species is ingrained in everything and everyone. If you do not have or get that, that is fine, but do not get in the way of those that do. The one thing we have got going for us is that we, as a species, are too stubborn to understand that things are (nearly) impossible to do, and that we refuse to die.

And no, we do not deserve anything special, but we have everything we need to work for it.

Edited May 26, 2015 by Camacha

[baggers]

That is a great story, except that the survival of the individual and species is ingrained in everything and everyone. If you do not have or get that, that is fine, but do not get in the way of those that do.

And no, we do not deserve anything special, but we have everything we need to work for it.

At a side note, if nobody give to humanity any goal, it's actually a blessing: it mean that humanity and every humans can chose a goal at will, and make their own goals ^^

[Camacha]

it really doesn't matter if Humanity survives.

From a spectator's point of view, you are right. From a human point of view: na-ah.

[baggers]

From a spectator's point of view, you are right. From a human point of view: na-ah.

Probably only because you want it that way (and a bit of self-preservation process, and cultural pressure, that sort of things)

But ultimately, it's up to you.

[SargeRho]

Sure, from a cosmic point of view, it doesn't matter if humanity goes extinct anymore than if a sack of rice falls over in China. But we aren't looking at it from a cosmic perspective, we're looking at it from our own perspective. Since there's no objective judge of what matters and what doesn't, it's up to each of us. A misanthrope might not care if humanity goes extinct either, but I hope most of us here aren't misanthropes

[ChrisSpace]

Please, stay on topic. Thank you.

[DeepOdyssey]

A small probe traveling at 0,1 C wouldn't be out of our reach i guess.

[dansmithers]

Is a cryogenic coffin(*) and an automated pilot technically "manned"?

* technologically assisted tardigrade-like cryptobiotic state.

Ray Kurzweil is a technological singularity theorist- "Manned" in this case means "operated by a transhuman intellect".

[Linear]

A small probe traveling at 0,1 C wouldn't be out of our reach i guess.

That is still pretty fast. Like, really fast....But that's in today's terms. Within 100 years i'd be sad if that's all we can do.

[Dausuul]

Do you think we will be capable of interstellar travel within this century? If so how? And if not, why?

Hmm. I'm going to start by assuming a few definitions here:

"Capable" --> "Possessing the engineering know-how to construct such a ship, such that if we decided to do it, it would be just a question of money."

"Interstellar travel" --> "Moving living human beings, or the mind-uploaded equivalent, to another star system such that when the ship arrives, there will still be living human beings (or the mind-uploaded equivalent) aboard."

I'm not going to require that the ship actually be able to get to another star system before 2100, just that it could be launched by then.

...And I'm still gonna say no. I am reasonably optimistic about technology and I do think the human species (or the MUE) will go to the stars one day, if we don't bomb ourselves to extinction first. But within this century? Highly doubtful. We're still struggling just to get off the ball of dirt we live on. We'll be doing well to colonize Mars by 2100, let alone Alpha Centauri.

It is just conceivable that we might launch an unmanned probe to another star system by the end of this century. (Voyager doesn't count; for something to be a probe, it has to be able to, you know, probe things, and report back on what it finds. By the time Voyager gets to another star system, it won't be a probe any more, just a funny-looking meteor.) Even then, however, I would bet against.

[AngelLestat]

A small probe traveling at 0,1 C wouldn't be out of our reach i guess.

I already explain in this topic how to do it and in this century.

Is the only serious way. It has almost no flaws in comparison with the other methods.

2 post here:

http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/122033-Interstellar-Travel/page9

Also, I dont know why you mention manned, if you are not even able to imagine and prove the feasibility of a probe ship.

Edited May 26, 2015 by AngelLestat

[gamowin]

Will we have the technology for interstellar travel within the century? Probably.

Will we send humans to other stars within the century? Probably not.