Submitted by matthewgdick t3_101f9z4 in Futurology
IamSorryiilol t1_j2nh4md wrote
Reply to comment by strvgglecity in Pulling together different technologies to make interstellar colonization possible by matthewgdick
Not new physics. New technologies. We have the physics
strvgglecity t1_j2njto4 wrote
There is no current physics understanding that enables life forms to conduct interstellar travel on human timescales. We can send machines over decades or centuries, and possibly eventually humans, but the idea of centuries long trips sounds more like fiction than science fiction. There's too many things that could go wrong on a generation ship, and there are no known habitable.planets.
meaningful interstellar travel and communications would require understanding how to manipulate wormholes or to break the speed of light. We don't understand either of those things or know if they are possible, so it's not just technology.
ActonofMAM t1_j2np65u wrote
Nothing like the round trip speed of even Age of Sail travel on Earth between different continents, no. But Earth and the colony, later colonies, could communicate at lightspeed and share data. If the colony system has enough resources, and the colony ships with a wide enough selection of human DNA, that's all that would be needed.
Mind you, I'd expect each system's human race to speciate. Maybe even on purpose.
strvgglecity t1_j2nrnxz wrote
One-way communication to the nearest star would take 4.5 years, 9 years to get an answer. There would be no functional purpose for communication, no opportunity for conversation.
Further, the resources required to keep humans alive are enormous - each inhabitant of the new planet would require about 75,000 pounds of food and 86,000 litres of water, which is unlikely to be mined or produced on-planet for at least the first several hundred years while building would occur.
UniversalMomentum t1_j2p6596 wrote
Of course there is use to share data between worlds, that's just silly. You think because they can't IM there is no use for communication. GO HOME YOUR DRUNK!
You don't have to send humans in big ships, you can send tiny ground based laser powered probes that setup a receiving station and then beam the human mind as data that can go the speed of light. None of that put you up against the fundamental forces of the universe like trying to carry enough fuel and food to bring humans through space or pretending you can keep human in stasis for thousands of years and not have them turn to mush.
angrypuppy35 t1_j2nmmom wrote
That’s not really true. Nuclear pulse propulsion technologies that could take us to low single digit % of light speed are feasible in the next 10-20 years.
someguyfromtheuk t1_j2ot97o wrote
It's estimated that Earth-like planets around sun-like stars are an average of 20 light years apart. Covering that distance at 0.01c takes 2,000 years.
angrypuppy35 t1_j2otieo wrote
Never said 1% of the speed of light and the post was about interstellar travel. Alpha Centauri is 4.3 light years away.
IamSorryiilol t1_j2nn6y2 wrote
See, what you did there was add a caveat of "human timescales" that didn't exist before.
Then you went on to agree with me? Very weird.
Anyway.. There are many many known habitable planets? Also, by the time any of this is viable, we would certainly be able to make non-habitable planets, habitable- ever heard of Mars?
"meaningful" is subjective to you. But, the science-fiction things you're talking about like "wormholes" or "traveling FASTER than the speed of light" are certainly going to require new physics. Faster than light travel.. haha made me chuckle.
We don't need any of these things to do interstellar travel. We just need time. These trips are one-way. Within my lifetime I certainly expect or at least hope humans to attain 1% of the speed of light..
"330,000 mph (535,000 kmh). That’s blindingly fast – yet only 0.05% of the speed of light" Is what a spacecraft has already achieved.
Our issues are certainly closer to being technological ones than physics. You need to wind that sci-fi neck in and be more realistic to the discussion.
Even at 10% the speed of light its 40 years to our nearest star. On earth people will age 40years not including time dilation. It is very much a long-term survival issue for our race.
strvgglecity t1_j2ntsq9 wrote
Sorry, idk what you're talking about. Earth is the only habitable planet ever discovered. Any human being who leaves Earth's atmosphere has zero other survivable habitats in the known universe.
Planetary geoengineering would take millennia, and require truly enormous resources and investments for something that wouldn't be realized for 1000s of years, light years away, with no opportunity for communication.
I used to get excited about space exploration and these types of far out topics, but our societies can barely feed their people. In the end idk what's so meaningful about spreading humans to other planets if we can't keep this planet sustainable and we can't end human suffering.
UniversalMomentum t1_j2p6ya9 wrote
Nah, we will have nearly unlimited production in 100-200 years as robots can start to make robots. It won't take anywhere near thousands of years. Look at how fast humans have progressed just in the last 200 years from like steam power to modern day computing and nanoengineering. In another 200 years we will look like an alien super civilization compared to what we are now at this rate.
strvgglecity t1_j2pd60u wrote
What does production have to do with geoengineering a whole planet? Yes, it will take thousands of years, at least, to create a habitable planet for humans and other earth life. Changing an entire planet is not something that happens quickly. The only reason we are able to have such an effect on our planet is because there's 8 billion of us and there are fossil fuels to burn and turn into chemicals. Other planets do not have either of those. Getting the necessary machinery to another planet might not even be possible. Geoengineering other planets is a far-off pipe dream idea at this point.
The whole enterprise is questionable. It would take multiple human lifetimes just to get there, and people and government are hesitant to invest large sums in super long term projects that have no return for the people funding it (taxpayers). Likewise, a business wouldn't take the risk because the cost is very high and the chance of success provides no value to earth or the company.
IamSorryiilol t1_j2nxfnk wrote
I really think you're greatly underestimating the speed at which science advances.
strvgglecity t1_j2ny82a wrote
Dude you said there are many habitable planets, and then you referenced Mars, and I have no idea why. Mars is not habitable. Any human exposed to Mars would be dead in under one minute from numerous fatal effects. I think you're greatly overestimating your own knowledge about space, physics and science in general. We went to the moon 50 years ago, and we can barely even get back.
Going to another star is not realistic for human beings. We can send machines.
IamSorryiilol t1_j2nzb65 wrote
You're really really being pedantic here to try and brute force some sense of being right.
You know fine well I meant potentially habitable. We will have humans living on mars by 2040 at the latest. Co-HABITATING there as a group of HUMANS living on MARS.
Take your nonsense elsewhere. Humans will be living on other planets long before the end of the millennium, including those in far-off star systems you seem to think, is unachievable. It is a necessity, a requirement for survival.
Enjoy your bubble
strvgglecity t1_j2o2mbf wrote
Lol being right is right. Not pednatic. Being accurate has meaning.
You didn't say "potentially habitable", you said habitable. Literally any planet anywhere is "potentially habitable". Even asteroids. Maybe we'll design a Venus or Uranus habitat one day. That phrase is functionally meaningless.
NASA isn't projecting the first manned flight until at least 2035 (super likely to be delayed). I suspect you think space works like it does in the movies.
IamSorryiilol t1_j2o5w2x wrote
I mean it isn't.. potentially habitable has meaning and it is not an asteroid or gas giant.
Lol.
Hmm no think you're incorrect on that one.
I suspect you do Mr 'Faster than light travel'.
This is what's called a tangent anyway. No we do not need new physics for interstellar travel, end of discussion.
strvgglecity t1_j2o62xb wrote
Nope. Stupid. Too stupid. Blocked.
UniversalMomentum t1_j2p6l2v wrote
The whole point of colonization is to find a 1G Earth like planet where we can live in a normal biological forms and not suffer low gravity or weird planet syndrome or long term radiation.
We don't need more places to live really. The Earth won't run out of resources or get filled up by out of control population and copying the human brain to a machine which lets us live almost anywhere is probably MUCH easier than traveling between stars.
We don't be sending living humans that age like you thinking, we will send tiny probes and beam humans as data and we will do it because we can, not because we have to.
UniversalMomentum t1_j2p5jue wrote
Yes there is, you copy a human brain to a machine, you send a probe use laser propolsion. The probes sets up a recieving station and you send the human as data.
No laws of physics broken and you get fractional light speeds out of the probes and full light speed out of the humans beamed as data.
The reason you think physics need to be broken is because your brain is stuck thinking we need to send humans in space ships, which might be impossible due to the onboard energy and mass you'd need to bring or the immense time it would take.
If you use tiny probes you get to 1/10 or 1/4 the speed of light and actually hop between stars with your probes fairly easily and without risking lives/you can always backup any living humans to a machine but the accelerating large amounts of mass is too much of a problem.
So you solve that problem by not doing it, you approach everything with an ultra low mass solution because that's part of the fundamental limit of physics.. mass doesn't like to accelerate. Space time doesn't want mass to accelerate easily, so stop thinking of that as you main way of doing things and it becomes a lot more possible.
You have to get brain to machine transfer tech to make it work, but that tech is going to be super useful for a lot more than just space travel and it doesn't break any laws of physics to make a copy of a human brain and beam it as electromagnetic waves without all those pesky mass limits.
It's not the easiest thing to do, but at least you don't have to bend physics or invent impossibly high density portable energy sources.
strvgglecity t1_j2pc4e6 wrote
Ok... So you do that. Then what? The mind is stuck inside the tiny machine, what's the next step?
ryujin88 t1_j2qrplh wrote
I assuming you can do that, why bother sending the brain data? Ultimately if no humans are going there then what's the point of a bunch of robots running people simulations on another planet?
Pleasant_Carpenter37 t1_j2np814 wrote
> more like fiction than science fiction
What's the distinction you're trying to make here? My first reactions are "All science fiction is fiction" and "the OP's plot certainly qualifies as science fiction". So...I think I'm missing your point.
As to new physics, I'm 50/50 on that. On one hand, I think it's physically possible to send a probe to a neighboring star system. Something between a nuclear thermal rocket, xenon thrusters, and a solar sail could probably do the trick.
If you have the propulsion to get a probe to another star, you can certainly pack some frozen embryos and seed banks. The robots we have make that part plausible, and uploading minds into computers has been around for a bit.
OTOH, even if all of the pieces here are technically possible, I doubt that our culture would be willing to sink in the investment required. If the payoff time is 500 years, who's going to make that sacrifice now? We could be facing a civilization collapse in a fraction of that time.
strvgglecity t1_j2nqw83 wrote
The payoff time would be never, because no humans on earth would ever be able to interact with people on the other planet. The closest star is 4.5 light years away, so even a simple text message exchange would take 9 earth years. No human on earth would experience a benefit to their lives, and the people on the new planet are unlikely to thank humanity for stranding them.
The only.proposed method so far for interstellar travel are micromachines with solar sails, but no, they cannot carry any cargo. The theoretical design weighs mere grams. You would need a full spaceship of decades worth of food, water and other materials for however many people are intended, and massive amounts of gases to survive. The only reason earth is habitable to humans is because various other life forms altered the planet's chemistry and made it hospitable for us.
The cost is probably the largest blockade to an attempt, but I doubt even an earnest attempt would be successful or meaningful. Earth humans have nothing to gain by sending embryos light years away.
Pleasant_Carpenter37 t1_j2odmri wrote
> no humans on earth would ever ... interact
> text message exchange would take 9 earth years
These contradict each other.
> decades worth of food, etc.
The OP proposed sending frozen embryos and a seed bank. Who's eating the 20+ year supply of Campbell's chicken soup?
> Earth humans have nothing to gain
Self-fulfilling prophecy? If you can't imagine that you have anything to gain by exploration, you won't become an explorer.
Finally, I'll repeat my question from my earlier comment: What distinction were you trying to make between 'fiction' and 'science fiction'? I'm still not sure what you meant by that.
strvgglecity t1_j2ofn1f wrote
How do you grow from a seed bank to feed hundreds of infants (the minimum size for a sustainable DNA population)? Where do the plants grow? In what soil? What water are you using?
All food that goes to space now is dehydrated and they use onboard water to rehydrate it, because it's more efficient and cost effective. There are no canned goods.
Yes, messages that take 9 years isn't interaction. It's extremely slow communication that would have virtually no function.
I consider science fiction, for the purposes of questioning the future, to be based on science. It's also not important and was a throwaway line.
Yes, humans have nothing to gain by sending probes light years away. There is no opportunity for anyone on earth to benefit from that endeavor. The trip would take multiple lifetimes, so unless people are immortal, nobody who sent the ship would be there for or to arrive, AND the technological advances made in the interim would very likely make the previously sent ship obsolete. It's much more likely that we will transition to hybrid biomechanical beings before even attempting to reach another star, and biomechanical beings may have immortality or have lost the need for physical bodies entirely, with the ability to exist on a computer server and be uploaded into various forms once it arrives.
Pleasant_Carpenter37 t1_j2op9vj wrote
Hydroponics? Starter pack of bacteria to condition the soil on the new world? Maybe there's already soil there that would be suitable with some prep work? We can't actually get a close enough look to say whether any given exoplanet is a lifeless rock or not. Any such colony ship would surely be preceded by a survey probe, so the robots would draw water from the environment.
And yes, I know they don't send literal cans of soup into orbit. I'm sure you can forgive a convenient turn of phrase even if it wouldn't be part of a technical specification for NASA.
Slow communication is still interaction. If I write a letter and send it to my mother via snail mail, does her response not count as 'interacting'? That seems like a silly way to twist the meaning of the word. That being said, communication with a 20-ish-year latency (now thinking of places like Wolf 359 or Ross 128) would be a different model than what we have now.
Actually, that raises another practical issue. How do you send a coherent signal over such great distances? Directional radio antenna? Laser comms? The power levels and precision needed to make a direct transmission work might not be feasible. OTOH, you could launch relay probes at regular intervals to simplify the problem, so it wouldn't be insurmountable.
There's definitely the risk that an "early" colony vessel would be completely obsolete by time it arrived. I read a story a while back where humanity sent a diplomatic mission to an alien homeworld via a coldsleep ship. While they were having tea with the alien emperor, Earth's first FTL ship arrived! Definitely the kind of stuff that would make some aerospace engineers despair.
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments