Why is everyone here such a pessmist?

[NASAFanboy]

Most of people at science labs really believe that humanity is doomed to extinction, or will advance slowly.

One even said we'll send our first ship to Alpha Centauri in 3000

Tell me, what is this?

If you want mankind to advance, don't resign yourself to fate! Do something! (i.e Volunteering for the Mars Society, writing letters to Congressmen, running for Congress, preaching benifits of space exploration to friends, .etc.etc).

Seriously, you have to be hopeful and optimistic, instead of going around saying everything is impossible.

[Godot]

Saying that we´ll send our first colony ship to Alpha Centauri in 3000 sounds pretty optimistic to me ...

after all it means that he thinks that mankind in 3000 still is around and with a tech level that hasn´t declined to that of medieval or stone ages

[sal_vager]

I'm hopeful for a future where we will be able to buy our own small spacecraft like we can buy a yacht or motorboat now, expensive and kinda big, but doable for many, craft like we see in the space games we play such as the X series.

Can't see it happening in my lifetime which is a shame, and no idea how I'd help bring it about.

[NASAFanboy]

Saying that we´ll send our first colony ship to Alpha Centauri in 3000 sounds pretty optimistic to me ...

after all it means that he thinks that mankind in 3000 still is around and with a tech level that hasn´t declined to that of medieval or stone ages

I'm pretty certain of interstellar travel by the mid 22nd century. That is, if NASA keeps getting funded.

The reason I don't say 3000, is I don't want space travel to seem like the future. I want it to seem like today, something that could happen in my lifetime (I'm still a minor).

[Galileo Kerbonaut]

An optimist is a badly informed pessimist. Everything comes and goes. People tend to think the whole universe is build around them, that they're more special than anything else and therefor must survive for ever. In reality we are nothing more than a passing volatile substance. One day humankind will cease to exist.

[Lohan2008]

A pessimist has reasonable expectations of what can go wrong, if you set your bar LOW enough most people will eventually bumble over that prediction.

Excuse me while I drive to shops to look for an English speaking attendant.

Edited November 27, 2013 by Lohan2008

[Godot]

I'm pretty certain of interstellar travel by the mid 22nd century. That is, if NASA keeps getting funded.

The reason I don't say 3000, is I don't want space travel to seem like the future. I want it to seem like today, something that could happen in my lifetime (I'm still a minor).

Well, manned travel to nearby star system (I assume with "ships" you mean manned ships and not probes) is future and you will most probably not experience it in your lifetime ... sorry.

Even if we solve the problem of fuel (i.e. making the ship big enough to store enough fuel to decelerate at the target star system) it will still travel decades or even centuries ... depending on the distance and the maximum speed it can reach (and of course the TWR -> the time it needs to reach this speed and in the 2nd half of the journey decelerate)

It will also require the necessary systems that will run flawlessly for these decades or centuries (maybe even double the time if the ship should afterwards travel back home) or at least run with so few flaws that they can be repaired with things on board and the necessary life support that supplies the crew with the necesary O2 and food and takes away CO2 and other harmful waste products (the experiments with Biosphere 2 that were made 1 or 2 decades ago with the target to get a self stustaining enclosed mini ecosystem [which could solve this task] failed)

It would also require Billions of dollar (a multiple of the money spent for the moon race) in spending for something that won´t benefit the majority of mankind and won´t produce results for decades ... and may also fail miserably (i.e. due to fatal accidents during the journey, before reaching the target system) ... and also would be something that can accomplished cheaper via unmanned probes.

(In these regards you also have to take into acount that we still have Millions of people on earth starving, our planet divided into several countries (that all have their own agenda and own problems that are more important to spend their money on than spaceflight) and rising debts of countries)

Of course (at least if it isn´t a suicide mission) it would also require the target system to have planets where the crew could build a base or at least scoop fuel for the return trip, which lets Alpha Centauri seem an improbable candidate for the journey (being a Triple star system) and therefore would require an even longer journey.

Therefore manned missions to planets inside our solar system or even an attempt at terraforming Mars is IMHO much more probable for the next few centuries than interstellar spaceflight

Edited November 3, 2013 by Godot

[Krevsin]

It's been 40 years since the last moon landing, with the possibility of repeating that act being juggled by politicians in order to increase their campaign popularity. We have a feasible plan with which we could go to mars in about a decade and it is still only a proposal. The Mars One initative is being ridiculously secretive of the technical aspect of their mission, prompting much doubt from many people.

It's hard to be an optimist when you see your dreams crushed under the hard, unyielding foot of reality.

But still, I somehow manage. I believe that in 20 years, the moon landing shall be repeated, first by China and then by India (could also be the other way round) which might, just might push NASA and ESA into working together on a Mars mission in what very well could be the second or even the third space race.

[merlinux]

Well, manned travel to nearby star system (I assume with "ships" you mean manned ships and not probes) is future and you will most probably not experience it in your lifetime ... sorry.

Even if we solve the problem of fuel (i.e. making the ship big enough to store enough fuel to decelerate at the target star system) it will still travel decades or even centuries ... depending on the distance and the maximum speed it can reach (and of course the TWR -> the time it needs to reach this speed and in the 2nd half of the journey decelerate)

It will also require the necessary systems that will run flawlessly for these decades or centuries (maybe even double the time if the ship should afterwards travel back home) or at least run with so few flaws that they can be repaired with things on board and the necessary life support that supplies the crew with the necesary O2 and food and takes away CO2 and other harmful waste products (the experiments with Biosphere 2 that were made 1 or 2 decades ago with the target to get a self stustaining enclosed mini ecosystem [which could solve this task] failed)

It would also require Billions of dollar (a multiple of the money spent for the moon race) in spending for something that won´t benefit the majority of mankind and won´t produce results for decades ... and may also fail miserably (i.e. due to fatal accidents during the journey, before reaching the target system) ... and also would be something that can accomplished cheaper via unmanned probes.

(In these regards you also have to take into acount that we still have Millions of people on earth starving, our planet divided into several countries (that all have their own agenda and own problems that are more important to spend their money on than spaceflight) and rising debts of countries)

Of course (at least if it isn´t a suicide mission) it would also require the target system to have planets where the crew could build a base or at least scoop fuel for the return trip, which lets Alpha Centauri seem an improbable candidate for the journey (being a Triple star system) and therefore would require an even longer journey.

Therefore manned missions to planets inside our solar system or even an attempt at terraforming Mars is IMHO much more probable for the next few centuries than interstellar spaceflight

Completely agree on that.

It is being optimistic to believe we would send humans to interstellar destinations whether in 200years or a 1000 years. It is being optimistic to believe that the poverty problem and overpopulation of the human race will ever get better.

As much as I love space exploration I would consider such a decision a waste of money and I am absolutely against bar a prosperous and sustainable humanity (which it is not). Even sending human to mars right now causes some dilemmas although I believe that will happen in our lifetime and has some merits. Even if you can do something, doesn't mean you should.

It kind of reminds me of, although not related to space, of Romario (the ex brazil striker) who recently turned to politics. The guy is campaigning against his country hosting the world cup next year. His reasons being that it doesnt help the social problems Brazil faces right now and in fact worsen every prospect of the country being a first world country in the near future. Just because Brazil and brazilians love footbal, it wasn't the best decision to give the world cup to a country that dearly needed money to be spent elsewhere.

[Nuke]

i dont see a whole lot of pessimism so much as people in the know shooting down the ideas of the layman. if the idea is new or not very well understood, and someone in the know has no idea, they will just revert to the default skepticism that comes with the scientific thought process. at that points you might get a "thats impossible" out of someone, possibly out of nothing more than lazyness or the lack of will to think about or investigate something new. i dont like saying something is impossible. its like watching old scifi and having some character say that something is impossible when you have an example of why it is possible sitting in a box somewhere or even on your desk. then again if you ask "is x possible" and the answer is no, but then go on about why it should work. you kinda missed the whole point of asking. its rather depressing, its almost as depressing as some of the things that go on in the ksp suggestions board.

[NASAFanboy]

Oh great, now their insulting my views for saying that I'll gladly sacrifice my life for the space program. Must...resist..temptation...to flame...

While interstellar travel with the technology of today is downright impossible, I'm going to keep hoping and keep up my studies. Who knows, in the future....

Back then, in 1850, splitting the atom was violating the laws of physics.

Tomorrow, in 2150, they'll look back and and say "Y'know, back in 2013, they thought interstellar travel was impossible. But here's how we'll do it.

Imm not hopeful for the acclubbierre drive anytime soon.

I'm not hopeful for fusion anytime soon.

I'm not hopeful for antimatter.

But Imm going to keep supporting all of them as viable fuels.

[Tommygun]

Pessimism comes with age, some can argue it's wisdom.

When you live long enough you see a lot of plans and theories come and go.

The economic climate at the moment doesn't help any. When the world economy stabilizes, people views will most likely improve somewhat.

[ZedNova]

I think it's best to be an knowledgable and informed optimist rather than a pessimist.

[m4v]

Is hard to be optimistic been you have politicians still arguing over whenever if climate change is anthropogenic or not, that there's still no viable replacement for fossil fuels and that most of the money goes to warfare and not to space exploration.

Being optimistic in this situation is just being oblivious to our current problems.

[ZedNova]

being pessimistic about everything gives you a false sense of despair. I really don't think that's a proper state-of-mind.

[SFJackBauer]

being pessimistic about everything gives you a false sense of despair. I really don't think that's a proper state-of-mind.

I agree. My advice regarding overly pessimistic people - get as far as you can from them!

Now, a bit of pessimism is healthy to keep your feet on the ground a bit.

[toric5]

i do not think of spaceflight as a problem with our technology, i see it as more of a problem with our economy. i mean, we can do a lathe flight in an ssto in ksp. i know it isn't 100 percent accurate, but it should then be possible to do it with a huge colony ship irl, right? but then again, once economy gets set up, in ksp, lets hope the kernels care more about spaceflight than we humans do!

[Krosulhah]

I got a point to make.

You say that you don't hope for fusion soon?

Its on its way....

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ITER

And

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-23595133

Second link is to the news of a southern france Fusion reactor being built.

People really need to look around...

Edit: Just realised you meant as a fuel, Still though, Might aswell show people fusion is well on its way

Edited November 5, 2013 by Krosulhah

[AmpsterMan]

Just my two cents:

Might we be confusing pessimism with skepticism ?

I think it is healthy to be skeptical about certain things. Often times the more conservative thoughts are needed to keep the dangers of over-optimism in check. Undoubtedly one looks back into the past and sees individuals who said such-and-such is imposible and then get proven that their statements are incorrect 50 years later. Does this make their reasons for making a statement incorrect? Hardly. If someone in the 1850s said powered flight is impossible they would be both completely wrong and completely justified in their statement. Why? Because the only source of power known at the time was Steam Power. There was no knowledge of the internal combustion engine.

Usually to make a leap of Knowledge, whether personal or society wide, there needs to be a one degree of separation. That is, to say you can fly with steam engines is stupid, to say you could fly with an internal combustion engine is crazy enough that it just might work.

The pessimism I think you might be sensing in these parts is nothing more than a healthy skepticism because humanity as a species is not yet at that point of having just one more piece of knowledge to go to reach ubiquitous space travel.

[hugix]

I'm more of a realist. Everything must have an end. Humanity, the Earth, our sun. You name it. So in that I'm pessimistic.

Yet the moment it will happen (and how) I'm realistic about. I do not see humanity destroying itself anytime soon. Those days are in uor past. Evidenced by the fact that the doomsday clock is slowly turning back. We do still have the arms to do it. and Iran is currently trying to build the A-bomb. But the big treats of using them is over us.

the biggest risks of our demise are either being hit by something big from outer space. Or a pandemic like the plague.

The first problem does have some hypothetical solutions but these do depend mostly on the the space monster hitting us or rely on technology still in its infancy. Luckily the NEAR program is scanning the skies and non sciency news agents also report on asteroids close-by. This might help to generate funds to develop plans for when things do go wrong.

My biggest fear is a pandemic. The plague cut 1/3th of the European citizens in a time with limited travel possibilities. Nowadays we can fly between all the continents within a day!

[m4v]

I got a point to make.

You say that you don't hope for fusion soon?

Its on its way....

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ITER

And

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-23595133

Second link is to the news of a southern france Fusion reactor being built.

People really need to look around...

Edit: Just realised you meant as a fuel, Still though, Might aswell show people fusion is well on its way

It's been "on its way" for like 60 years, and it's going to be "on its way" for the next 60. I surely hope that your optimism isn't making you believe that fusion is going to come to save us before we croak due to lack of fossil fuels, because it isn't.

[Krosulhah]

Did you not even check the second link.... it says one IS being built in france.

Nor did i ever say that it was coming to save us, i merely mentioned that it is happening.

Edited November 5, 2013 by Krosulhah

[m4v]

Did you not even check the second link.... it says one IS being built in france.

And you don't know the characteristics of what is being built in France.

This is my problem with people that is optimistic, most of the time they're optimistic not because they have reasons to be so, but because they just don't know, is the ignorant bliss.

Edited November 5, 2013 by m4v

[Krosulhah]

Oh thanks, call me an idiot. Nice.

Yes, i know it is experimental, But the point is It is a Fusion reactor, experimental or not, its still one.

Nor am i actually being Optimistic really, they may be building it, but Heck, until they try it, I dont actually think its gonna work.

Edited November 5, 2013 by Krosulhah

[drakesdoom]

Usually to make a leap of Knowledge, whether personal or society wide, there needs to be a one degree of separation. That is, to say you can fly with steam engines is stupid, to say you could fly with an internal combustion engine is crazy enough that it just might work.

Yeah steam planes impossible.