The ultimate test for a civilization.

[ThinkOutsideTheHangar]

Simple. We first need to sort out the world and fix all of our earthly problems. Then we need to break down the tech problems, such as fusion engines and life support problems. And finally, with everything set, a space program to utilise the tools to go forth into space!

[Mazon Del]

NASA being underfunded in a weird way is something that is actually helping the space industry, because it means that we get people like SpaceX who show up to provide alternatives/competition. Once the Falcon Heavy is up and running, we are going to see a resurgence in space utilization like never before, because Musk will make it happen even if nobody else does. This is ignoring also the other companies that also exist doing the same thing.

As far as estimated costs and such, yes this has been done. There have been quite a lot of papers done on the subject of making vast space stations and colony ships over the years. The primary cost driver is the fact that right now you have to push all your ship mass off Earth and into orbit, which is stupidly expensive. Companies like Planetary Resources are going to be a big help once the Heavy gets ready, they exist to mine out asteroids. I once saw an analysis that stated if you took one of the average sized asteroids (roughly a 5mile to a side cubic volume) and mined it out, the iron it would provide would allow the WORLD iron mining industry to shut down for at least 20 years INCLUDING anticipated growth trends for the market. Once we have the ability to mine asteroids, resources become super cheap in space (by comparison with current rates anyway). And these are companies doing it, half of them started by money coming from billionairs rather than governments.

I am afraid I have to disagree with your statement that the only logical way to do it is all together. It just is not necessary. It would help in a lot of ways to be sure, but all the primary technological advancements humanity has achieved have been done without large portions of the world. The ISS for example is one of the greatest examples of international cooperation on one of the biggest most complex projects ever, and over half the population of the Earth was not even tangentially involved. There is no aspect of physics that prevents only part of a civilization from leaving the planet/solar system. To state as much would end up being a religious debate which would get us thread locked, so perhaps we shouldn't go down that path.

The issue is right now, basically nobody CARES about space. If all of a sudden 10+% of the USA suddenly became very vocal about space and NASA and were demanding we get to mars NOW, we'd lunge ahead of the 2030 schedule and I bet you we could do it before the end of the decade if we cared enough to try. The big issue with all of this, is that even if we were a utopian single-world entity, people STILL wouldn't care as a whole, and the funding wouldn't really materialize.

[Nibb31]

The ultimate test for civilization will be to actually survive on Earth the next century or two. If we can get through the climate changes, while coping with our population growth, the rarification of easily available resources, and technological mutations, all at the same time and without losing our humanity, then we can do anything.

[shynung]

The issue is right now, basically nobody CARES about space.

This single sentence encompasses about 80% of all space-related problems as of now.

Most governments, even those in developed countries, think of space exploration as more about showing off the national pride rather than doing science or expanding into space. People think that space is just some futuristic dream that they will never reach in their lifetime, so they never bothered to care. Even when serious propositions are put forward (ones like asteroid mining), nobody even batted an eye, no matter how much impact it could have dealt.

Not many people realized that airplanes became a thing through constant trials and experiments. Same goes for space exploration.

[rtxoff]

There is no aspect of physics that prevents only part of a civilization from leaving the planet/solar system.

Sure there is not, that does not mean we have the capabilities to do it or ever will have. The issue of nobody caring is exactly that one preventing us from doing it, if you add up all variables together you will see the logic in my thinking.

I am afraid I have to disagree with your statement that the only logical way to do it is all together. It just is not necessary.

There are many things that are not necessary, if we argue like this let's all together continue to live our simple lives and do not bother anymore with space exploration. It is not necessary anyway.

Now where is the logic in that?

It would help in a lot of ways to be sure, but all the primary technological advancements humanity has achieved have been done without large portions of the world.

Well now think where mankind would be if this technological advancements how you call them (i think there are just a drop on a glowing stone) would have been shared around the globe instead of trying to profit from them or even go at war with it.

Maybe i am an idiot and ideologist but some inner voice is telling me with the current course we are doomed and as good as dead. Serious changes need to happen, this madness that is happening every day has to stop.

If not for our selves then for our children and their offspring. We are at a point where everybody must ask himself already if it is a good idea to even have children because unconsciously everybody knows in what hell they gonna grow. If this is not madness then i do not know what is.

[Mazon Del]

The first part still doesn't make sense to me, you jump from listing a few variables to suddenly utopia without exactly providing a transition of how one follows the other, assume I am a child, explain in a step by step manner if possible (I get that sometimes these things aren't that fleshed out, so if you can't that's fine).

Honestly your statement of "let's not bother with space exploration, it's not necessary anyway." IS the prevailing logic amongst the majority of the population. In a lot of ways they are right, but all of the valid reasons for pushing it off, only work in the short term. They ignore all the long term consequences. As much as I hate the argument of "why are we going to space when we have starving people?" it is actually very valid argument. Is it better to help out untold numbers of people in the far future, or is it better to save thousands today? And there are plenty of situations where you ignore the long term because the short term matters more, what you should eat for dinner doesn't matter and can be ignored if right now you are fighting off a burgler. So it is somewhat hard to fault them.

Really at its core, the argument of what it takes to make a ship is tech and resources. For the tech, what we have can in some ways be considered good enough, give people 10 years and a halfway decent budget and we can get NERVA running again for an actual engine. Give people 10 years, a serious budget, and some nukes, and we can have an Orion drive one of the best engines ever conceived that actually can work based upon physics proven to be certain right now (warp drives, despite my love for them, are technically not certain just yet.). For resources, within another 10-15 years Planetary Resources or one of its competitors will be mining an asteroid in orbit, and suddenly resources are no longer a problem, at all. None of these things are actually a problem that require the concerted efforts of humanity. Honestly, in 50 years, we could start having nuclear wars that end all life on Earth and STILL be sending out a ship to another solar system.

I get that it is fundamentally a monumental task to build and launch it, but honestly it really is just a matter of time.

[rtxoff]

We are coming closer, so please tell me why are there people starving? Because there is not enough food? Because we can't produce enough food? Or maybe is it because starving people can't afford their food? Do you see something? People are throwing away their foods in some countries and in some others people are literary eating poo from the streets, is this explaination enough for you? I am not saying that i am different but we have to start beeing it. Some wise guy said once:

When the Last Tree Is Cut Down, the Last Fish Eaten, and the Last Stream Poisoned, You Will Realize That You Cannot Eat Money

As long as money is the driving motor of our society we are not going anywhere if you like it or not.

You know that NERVA and Orion where stopped for a reason right?

I will stop commenting anymore on this thread, i said what i had to say and what is my believe, however if anyone has something to contribute to it please do so.

[Mazon Del]

It is sad that there are starving people in the world, it really is. I go out of my way to give a dollar to the random homeless person I run into. But the fact of the matter is that feeding them all is not a prerequisite for getting into space. The two are largely unconnected. The Soviet Union got into space and their people had much less selection for food than some place like the UK, which never did on their own. This is a social problem completely disconnected from space flight. At the risk of sounding strawman-esque it is like declaring that you need to fix the hole in your fence before you can buy a car. Both of these are tasks, but they are not necessarily connected.

I know exactly why NERVA and Orion were stopped. The Orion was stopped simply because people were nervous about the idea of actually using nuclear explosives to get to orbit and beyond. It was considered too dangerous for the part where we got to orbit, IE: what happens if the ship falls down? It is loaded with hundreds of nukes! The NERVA was stopped for one reason alone, because the Senate/Congress didn't want to start another space race with Russia. We beat them to the moon, but if we tried to get to Mars, so would they. And there is no way the US public would allow us to just bow out and let Russia get to Mars first. In fact, the public would not allow the Senate/Congress to order NASA to stop working on a Mars craft. So what they did was they looked at NASA's work and saw that NASAA only had one engine capable of getting humans to Mars, the NERVA. So they quietly cut the R&D funding to the NERVA which killed the only engine that would let us get there, and therefor we stopped trying.

Both of these options are perfectly workable and are generally speaking safe. NERVA was in fact so safe, that when they had a legimate testing accident (they forgot to turn the engine off after the test, so the nuclear core overheated and ejected the fuel rods into the surrounding landscape for safety) it was such a non-event that the US military's NBC response team used it as a training excercise rather than an emergency. No evacuations were even needed. For the Orion, it is possible to create a perfectly acceptable means of transporting the nukes into orbit for use.

It was fun debating with you. (^ - ^)

[Everten P.]

Questions:

1. Many ships covered with a 6 meter pool of water surrounding it.

2. No that is what all the government agents in 'Murica are perinoid about. But, it really isnt that dangerous when you consider the odds of any life form to immediately predatorize us as a tasty snake because that would take thousands of years of evolution and adaptation to do that. ( Yes, I am a Hippie :/ )

3. Heck frikin' no.

[Mazon Del]

Well, number 2 is not exactly true. They could have evolved as carnivores. Depending on their protein layout, they could eat humans and gain nutrition, or they could eat humans as a 'fat free' snack because they couldn't metabolize our own proteins and we'd just pass right through. In either case, they could have manipulated their own biology to make this possibility more likely. Why might they do it? Highly unlikely they would do it because they need meat. Not impossible, but unlikely. Most likely is that it has some sort of weird cultural significance (religion, tradition, etc) to them.

[magnemoe]

It is sad that there are starving people in the world, it really is. I go out of my way to give a dollar to the random homeless person I run into. But the fact of the matter is that feeding them all is not a prerequisite for getting into space. The two are largely unconnected. The Soviet Union got into space and their people had much less selection for food than some place like the UK, which never did on their own. This is a social problem completely disconnected from space flight. At the risk of sounding strawman-esque it is like declaring that you need to fix the hole in your fence before you can buy a car. Both of these are tasks, but they are not necessarily connected.

I know exactly why NERVA and Orion were stopped. The Orion was stopped simply because people were nervous about the idea of actually using nuclear explosives to get to orbit and beyond. It was considered too dangerous for the part where we got to orbit, IE: what happens if the ship falls down? It is loaded with hundreds of nukes! The NERVA was stopped for one reason alone, because the Senate/Congress didn't want to start another space race with Russia. We beat them to the moon, but if we tried to get to Mars, so would they. And there is no way the US public would allow us to just bow out and let Russia get to Mars first. In fact, the public would not allow the Senate/Congress to order NASA to stop working on a Mars craft. So what they did was they looked at NASA's work and saw that NASAA only had one engine capable of getting humans to Mars, the NERVA. So they quietly cut the R&D funding to the NERVA which killed the only engine that would let us get there, and therefor we stopped trying.

Both of these options are perfectly workable and are generally speaking safe. NERVA was in fact so safe, that when they had a legimate testing accident (they forgot to turn the engine off after the test, so the nuclear core overheated and ejected the fuel rods into the surrounding landscape for safety) it was such a non-event that the US military's NBC response team used it as a training excercise rather than an emergency. No evacuations were even needed. For the Orion, it is possible to create a perfectly acceptable means of transporting the nukes into orbit for use.

It was fun debating with you. (^ - ^)

This, the Soviets was also worried about the costs, nerva is mostly useful for manned missions to mars or asteroids, also huge robot missions like Europa drill and sample return.

Orion for sending 1000 ton cargo to Jupiter, using it to send 10 man to Mars would be overkill.

[meve12]

Here is a wonderful example of how we could construct a light hugger that could get fairly close to light speed. Microwave laser assisted solar sail craft. Set up a few platforms (either nuclear powered on asteroids, the moon, etc. Or solar powered in close orbit around the sun.) that can beam out a microwave laser at the ship. The laser causes the ship to continuously accelerate at say 1G until it has effectively reached light speed. The ship either just flips over and lets the light from the target star slow them down, or they detach a mirror to bounce the laser back at themselves in order to slow down again. In this fashion you could easily send a ship to another solar system. Again, ideally you'd compact your crew into as light a mass as possible (stored existences and whatnot) but really all you need is about 10 people and a hell of a lot of stored sperm and eggs.

I'll just point out that this won't really work like a brachistochrone trajectory; turnover would have to be well before halfway as the target system's starlight is not as 'concentrated' as your launching laser. Which means no lighthugger shenanigans until a receiver laser is constructed.

I'd probably wait until nanoassemblers and disassemblers are invented so that the first ship could do just that.

[Tex]

Simply put, I believe that the ultimate test for a civilization is to remain civilization status.

Too many times have civilizations gone extinct, no matter how great their prior achievements were. Being able to keep your status as a civilization, I think, would enable you to pass the test.

[Mazon Del]

I'll just point out that this won't really work like a brachistochrone trajectory; turnover would have to be well before halfway as the target system's starlight is not as 'concentrated' as your launching laser. Which means no lighthugger shenanigans until a receiver laser is constructed.

I'd probably wait until nanoassemblers and disassemblers are invented so that the first ship could do just that.

Actually the idea I had stated about detaching a mirror to bounce the laser is generally speaking considered the best way to slow down in a solar sail craft. Not exactly the most energy efficient (a laser beam on for many years sucks down a lot of power), but it will do it for you. At least enough that you might be able to play some games with the orbits of the planets to extend your decel time using the star in question.

[vger]

Simply put, I believe that the ultimate test for a civilization is to remain civilization status.

Too many times have civilizations gone extinct, no matter how great their prior achievements were. Being able to keep your status as a civilization, I think, would enable you to pass the test.

That's not really a passable test though. That's like saying, "I'm finally done tidying up the room." That's constant maintenance, a mile-marker that always remains a mile away from you. A 'success' would be to reach a point where tidying up is no longer relevant.

This is a little bit of a response to gipsic too with regards to the greed issue. I think we stand a better chance at destroying a greed-based system by rendering it obsolete, than we do at convincing people to drop it. Those who have already achieved great power by climbing the ladder of that system will never agree to tear it down. Just look at how mad people get in MMO's when you nerf their class even a tiny bit. Now, imagine that same class being completely removed from the game, but make it IRL, and make it something that person has spent 50 years of their life working towards. No. It's not going to happen. BUT, breakthroughs in technology? And I don't mean LITTLE things like the "water powered car" that so many think was buried by Texaco, or whoever. I'm talking something much bigger. For example, we're already at a point where people are having to struggle to own land, even a tiny lot of it. Mastering space would make that irrelevant. It would take millions of years for us to run out of space in the galaxy. Energy is another big one. The universe still harbors many secrets, and the answers are out there in the great black void. The ability to harness (in simplistic terms) infinite power. You want to crush the greed system, flood the market. Use the resources of 'infinity' to make the supply greater than the demand can ever possibly be.

If we could accomplish such a thing, even in ONE of the major necessities (food, water, energy, health, etc), I would say that is a pretty big indicator that, "Yes, we're getting somewhere, and aren't going to spontaneously snuff it."

[zarakon]

The ultimate test will be whether or not we have the will to stop ourselves after realizing that our own exponentially-increasing power would eventually overwhelm and destroy the universe.

[Javster]

Personally I think preventing a natural disaster is a very effective test: it proves that you can rule what happens to you.

[vger]

Personally I think preventing a natural disaster is a very effective test: it proves that you can rule what happens to you.

Preventing, or avoiding?

When I think of PREVENTING a natural disaster, I think of actually preventing an earthquake, hurricane, volcano, etc from even starting.

[Mazon Del]

The ultimate test will be whether or not we have the will to stop ourselves after realizing that our own exponentially-increasing power would eventually overwhelm and destroy the universe.

Do I detect a fellow fan of Gurren Lagann?

Really though, if anything our exponentially increasing power is more likely to aid the universe. An example: What if we figure out how to harness the effectively infinite energy provided by Zero Point Energy and random other physics quirks we don't know about in order to build systems capable of acting as star forges (IE: manufacture stars, solar systems, etc, from literally nothing). If indeed our power grows on such a scale, then eventually such a feat should be trivial for us. In this way we forcefully prevent the universe from dying out of old age (entropy).

[magnemoe]

Preventing, or avoiding?

When I think of PREVENTING a natural disaster, I think of actually preventing an earthquake, hurricane, volcano, etc from even starting.

Pretty hard to prevent something like an earthquake, yes you might be able to by getting the friction layer to skip gradually, secondary create one to offload the forces they way we bomb avalanche areas to trigger them and then clean.

[meve12]

Actually the idea I had stated about detaching a mirror to bounce the laser is generally speaking considered the best way to slow down in a solar sail craft. Not exactly the most energy efficient (a laser beam on for many years sucks down a lot of power), but it will do it for you. At least enough that you might be able to play some games with the orbits of the planets to extend your decel time using the star in question.

The problem with that being that the mirror gets pushed by the beam as well. So it'll need a long endurance guidance package and attitude control at the very least, and you waste one per mission since there's no way to recover it.

Personally, I'd prefer a Maser Sail departure stage and a rambrake/fission fragment rocket arrival stage.

[Mazon Del]

It was somewhat a foregone conclusion that the sail would have its own guidance package and attitude control for the second act. Plus, a solar sail craft should ideally have several sails in storage. One for outbound/reflection, one to use the reflection to slow down, and then 1-2 more as spares because you WILL sustain degradation from micrometeorites and such over time. So it really isn't that big of an issue. Define fission fragment rocket, I am curious!