Future of space flight?

[bdewoody]

No doubt that sometime in the not too distant future we will be traveling to the planets and moons of our solar system. What I am wondering is if we will ever discover a means to get to even the closest star with planets that might support life.<br /><br />Oh I know we have the capability to make one way trips with generation ships and that is good if we ever need to make the trip due to an impending disaster. But will we ever invent, discover or be given the capability of inter stellar flight where we can go somewhere and get back before everyone we know is dead and buried. By watching Sci-Fi TV and movies we have come to expect that this is possible but is it really?<br /><br />I'd like to read some of the other members thoughts on this subject. Will we develope the technology to explore our galaxy in person or will we have to be satisfied just to sit here and watch what happened tens, hundreds and thousands of years ago through our telescopes? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <em><font size="2">Bob DeWoody</font></em> </div>

 

[dragon04]

Expansion will be the key to galactic exploration barring some breakthrough technology that allows for travel close to <i>c</i>.<br /><br />Over hundreds of thousands of years, it would be possible to spread out and colonize more and more of the galaxy.<br /><br />I think the biggest irony would be that here on that future Earth, it would be tens of thousands of years before we knew the fate of the farthest colony. <br /><br />Even assuming that signals (let alone data) could be sent back through a chain of previously colonized worlds, we'd be seeing and hearing very old news by the time we received it.<br /><br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <em>"2012.. Year of the Dragon!! Get on the Dragon Wagon!".</em> </div>

 

[bdewoody]

Dragon04 said<br />"I think the biggest irony would be that here on that future Earth, it would be tens of thousands of years before we knew the fate of the farthest colony. <br /><br />Even assuming that signals (let alone data) could be sent back through a chain of previously colonized worlds, we'd be seeing and hearing very old news by the time we received it"<br /><br />That's mostly my point. It's really doubtful that we will ever possess a means of travel that will allow us to go to another solar system and come back within one lifetime back on earth, let alone say a year. So interstellar commerce is just the stuff of Sci-Fi, and if thats what drives industry we probably won't even attempt it. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <em><font size="2">Bob DeWoody</font></em> </div>

 

[elguapoguano]

You might want to call me a dreamer, but I think one day we will figure out a way around the problem. <br /><br />We already know that a great mass produces enough gravitation to bend space time. Once we figure out exactly what gravity is, then figure out how to manipulate it, FTL could be possible. One thing I've learned in my days, is that physicists don't know everything, and nothing is impossible. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <font color="#ff0000"><u><em>Don't let your sig line incite a gay thread ;>)</em></u></font> </div>

 

[sphynx]

“No doubt that sometime in the not too distant future we will be traveling to the planets and moons of our solar system”<br /><br /><br />I do not believe that. <br /><br />There.s a basic incompatibility between the human biology and the space. <br /><br />If the human being moves away of the terrestrial magnetic field…die. <br /><br />And not yet there is solution for that problem. <br /><br />Greetings From Argentina<br /><br />Sphynx<br />

 

[ashish27]

Sure mate, we would one day. But for now think how to get this religious beliefs and evil politicians out of the way. Those 2 have always been a barrier to space exploration.

 

[heyscottie]

And I do not believe that "religious beliefs" and "evil politicians" are the ones in the way of space exploration.<br /><br />If not for governmental funding, there would be almost no space exploration at this point. Why not? There is not yet any profit in it! When there is (and we're almost there now for space tourism), you'll see plenty of space industry. For now, space industry and technology is much farther ahead than it should be if only market forces were running the show. We can certainly disagree over whether the government should be running space programs or not, but I think it would be naive to suggest that the government has somehow held back progress to this point. Certainly the government should get out of the way of private industry when viable players emerge. But they are still really the only show in town!<br /><br />And I'm not sure where the attack on "religious beliefs" come from. I cannot think of any church or sizeable population that resists space exploration due to any religious doctrine. People like to point out the Catholic Church's reaction to Galileo, but the argument is getting tired. That admitedly short-sighted reaction had no real effect in the continuation of space exploration. And today, the Church actually operates a world-class observatory. Are there fundamentalist groups out there opposed to space exploration? Undoubtedly. But there are also groups out there that are opposed to cars and telephones. And I wouldn't say that they've stemmed the tide for the rest of us.<br /><br />So rethink your statement, please!

 

[h2ouniverse]

In best scenario, we will find in few decades new physics and disruptive propulsion technology. Combined with Von Neumann's machines, the colonization of the galaxy will then be a matter of few centuries.<br /><br />In extreme worst scenario, we stop space exploration. But if instead we assume that we keep at least the capability to reach planetary objects at few AUs distance, then, even if we assume too no further progress ever, this means we will cabotage to the galaxy ANYWAY.<br />From inner system to mid system to Kuiper Belt to Oort clouds, there will be millions of 10km+ sized objects. Once we are in the Oort Cloud, some of the most external objects will have trajectories that get out from Solar System. We can then "contaminate" progressively the systems that the Sun will pass on its way around the galactic center. Sun's neighbours vary a lot along this path as the orbit of our current neighbours is not identical to the Sun's. After say two Sun's orbits (about 500 million years), we should have accessed to most of spiral arms, like a milk drop dilluted in the vortex of a coffe cup.<br /><br />Although I don't believe in such a pessimistic, static view of mankind's future, you can see that even in that sclerotic scenario, we finally make it! Many objects currently in solar system are "interstellar vessels" in the long run, provided that you wait for enough time...

 

[h2ouniverse]

in reply to<br />"There.s a basic incompatibility between the human biology and the space. <br />"<br />------<br /><br />For current homo sapiens probably.<br />But you are reasoning at constant genome. Which will be breached by and large within probably few decades, at worst few centuries.<br />Homo Spatiens Radiodurans will make it... (or Cyborgus Spatiens, sorry for the barbarism).

 

[h2ouniverse]

To Heyscottie:<br />"Religious beliefs" in the broader sense might unfortunately encompass some extremist views (from religious fundamentalists to extreme environmentalists) that are incompatible indeed with space exploration when:<br />1) they fear an open world (hence more diverse, more dynamic and more difficult to totalitarize)<br />2) they are not comfortable with the idea of so-called "second genesis"<br />3) they believe (as some muslim scholars do e.g.) that space is God's realm that man is not allowed to soil, as they think man should remain "in his place" (face down)<br />4) they think it's a waste of time and an undue diversion as the second advent is imminent.<br />5) they are anti-science.<br />You are right Heyscottie in mentioning that most believers and clergies do not oppose space expansion. I think most are even ready to face the potential discovery of extra-terrestrial life. However I am afraid some might be upset by the theological implications. Points 3 and 4 only concern a fringe. But I am especially fearing points 1, 2 and 5 that are unfortunately relatively widespread nowadays, both among some so-called "true believers" and conservative environmentalists. High-level theologians are generally not affected but...

 

[sphynx]

My thought has nothing to do with "Religious beliefs". <br /><br />A reality exists and itself cannot be ignored: neither today, neither in a mediate future the human being this in conditions to travel by the space out of the terrestrial magnetic field. <br /><br />Not while it be not known how to isolate the human DNA of the mortal Grb and its ion Fe. <br /><br />Therefore the current lines of investigacion advance, not on the armor, but on the motors that permit to travel a lot but quickly that the current. <br /><br />Perhaps the solution already knew it B.Heim 5 decades ago behind? <br /><br />Pardon by my horrible management of the English. <br /><br />Greetings from Argentina<br /><br />Sphynx<br /><br /><br />http://ciencia.nasa.gov/headlines/y2004/17feb_radiation.htm <br /><br />http://www.astroseti.org/vernew.php?codigo=1407 <br /><br />http://www.spacedaily.com/reports/Mars_Mission_Risk_29_Radiation_Induced_Brain_Damage_999.html <br /><br />www.newscientistspace.com/article/dn10132-future-mars-astronauts-have-radiation-on-their-minds.html<br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br />

 

[h2ouniverse]

to "sphynx"<br />The debate on "religious beliefs" was not targeting anyone on this thread.<br />As far as radiation resistance is concerned, Bacteria Deinococcus Radiodurans withstands more than 1 MRad, with ability to automatically repair its DNA. And btw you do not need that much shielding both in spacecraft and once at your underground base (1m of rock or water ice will be enough, even without preventively altering your genome). I'm just mentioning two potential ways to deal with radiations, and there are others...<br />Radiation is a major issue but can be addressed imho. Especially in the long term. <br /><br />Best regards.

 

[jsmoody]

Nuclear rockets (they've been successfully tested), solar sails, ion drives, Brussard ramjets...those are only a few that we know will work. What we'll discover in the future is anybody's guess. Gravity wave propulsion, zero point energy.....lots of possibilities. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> No amount of belief makes something a fact" - James Randi </div>

 

[chyten]

<b>It's really doubtful that we will ever possess a means of travel that will allow us to go to another solar system and come back within one lifetime back on earth</b><br /><br />I think aging will be defeated long before we have the capacity to send macroscopic objects at relativistic speeds. And for people who do not age, a 10,000 year jorney at modest 0.5% c may not be such a big deal.

 

[MannyPim]

That is an excellent point and one that I was going to make myself.<br />You beat me to it.<br /><br />So, the progression of human technology will be along these lines:<br /><br />1. Achieve practical immortality within the next 30 to 50 years.<br />2. Colonize the inner solar sytem (Moon, Mars, asteroids, and free floating self sufficient giant colonies (Bernal Spheres and such) within the next 100 to 150 years.<br /><br />3. Advances in propulsion that will enable multi decade travel to nearest stars within the next 100 to 200 years.<br /><br />However, low probability that we will find another system that we want to colonize for a while, as long as as we are limited to sub light velocities.<br /><br />But given 1,000 to 5,000 years of technological advances, it is not really possible to predict the level of knowledge we can achieve over the quantum/physical processes that underpin all there is.... and if we can know these things at the most fundamental levels, there is a possibility we can harness capabilities that we cannot even imagine even our most creative sci fi minds.<br /><br />Arthur C. Clarke's famous quote comes to mind:<br />"A sufficiently advanced technology, is indistinguishable from magic."<br /><br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <font size="2" color="#0000ff"><em>The only way to know what is possible is to attempt the impossible.</em></font> </div>

 

[MeteorWayne]

I agree with you on all of it except for step 1.<br /><br />I do not believe immortality is an achievable (or necessarily desirable) goal.<br /><br />This might lead to a delay on the interstallar part, since I doubt interstellar missions will be paid for until the round trip is in a lifetime. Except for ST:TOS Botany Bay type expeditions. I don't see your first premise as valid, so that is OK for all the other steps but not the last.<br /><br />Perhaps with "suspended animation" such mission can be started, but don't see the financial commitment<br />Of course, Howard Hughes would have been happy to undertake such a mission, maybe. Or "You want to go for a ride???" <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /><br /><br />MHO of course. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font color="#000080"><em><font color="#000000">But the Krell forgot one thing John. Monsters. Monsters from the Id.</font></em> </font></p><p><font color="#000080">I really, really, really, really miss the "first unread post" function</font><font color="#000080"> </font></p> </div>

 

[h2ouniverse]

Mannypim,<br /><br />my 100% agreement...<br />I even believe many completely different approaches will "compete" (centralized planned, decentralized chaotic, socially inclusive/exclusive, knowledge-seeking / resources-seeking, expansion of massive societies / differentiation in "islands"...) with different combinations of means (biological engineering, information engineering, old-fashioned heavy crafts, VN machines...).

 

[richalex]

It is not too far of a technological stretch that we might be able to accumulate as much as a gram of antimatter. I've read that with a few nanograms of antimatter, and using it to promote thermonuclear fusion, we could explore our solar system out to 50 AU with a travel time of a few years at most. Using this technology, we could send unmanned space probes to the nearest stars with a travel time of a decade or so. But, adding a living organism requires considerable life support system, greatly increasing the mass of the capsule. We might be able to send men to the nearest stars in the next 150 years or so, at the current rate of progress, but I believe it would take half a lifetime to make the round trip.

 

[robnissen]

<font color="yellow">I do not believe immortality is an achievable (or necessarily desirable) goal. </font> <br /><br />For most of the 20th century, less expectancy has been increasing one year per 10 years. So far in the 21st Century, life expectencey has been increasing 3 years per 10 years. If the increase from 10% to 30% can be replicated one more time, i.e., 30% to over 100% (life expectency would increase more than ten years every ten years), humans will have achieved functional immortality. (Assuming we can continue the pace of more than a 10 year increase every ten years.)

 

[MeteorWayne]

OK, but show me how obtaining and containing a gram of antimatter is possible in our lifetime.<br /><br />Then show me how you get it to a space vehicle.<br /><br />Then show me how you pay for the buliding of the spaceship, and the creation, storage, and transportation of a gram of antimatter to the ship.<br /><br />you is dreamin' <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font color="#000080"><em><font color="#000000">But the Krell forgot one thing John. Monsters. Monsters from the Id.</font></em> </font></p><p><font color="#000080">I really, really, really, really miss the "first unread post" function</font><font color="#000080"> </font></p> </div>

 

[richalex]

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>For most of the 20th century, less expectancy has been increasing one year per 10 years. So far in the 21st Century, life expectencey has been increasing 3 years per 10 years.<p><hr /></p></p></blockquote>In the first place, only average life expectancy has increased. The maximum age is still less than 125 years (I don't remember the exact number, but I think it is around 114 years). <br /><br />In the 2nd place, the 21st Century has not existed long enough to make a generalized statement that is statistically meaningful.

 

[richalex]

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>OK, but show me how obtaining and containing a gram of antimatter is possible in our lifetime.<p><hr /></p></p></blockquote>Why should I be constrained to just "our" lifetimes? We are talking about the future, not just our own lifetimes. I even stated that I project this would take 150 years or so. <br /><br />The magnetospheres of the planets of our solar system constantly produce antimatter. At any one time, our own planet is believed to have a few nanograms of antimatter in its magnetosphere, which is constantly produced and destroyed. Devices could be constructed to collect and store this material in a magnetic bottle. <br /><br /><blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>Then show me how you get it to a space vehicle.<p><hr /></p></p></blockquote>It is just the transfer of charged particles. <br /><br /><blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>Then show me how you pay for the buliding of the spaceship, and the creation, storage, and transportation of a gram of antimatter to the ship.<p><hr /></p></p></blockquote>Probably the same way that we would pay for any other space ship. <br /><br /><blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>you is dreamin'<p><hr /></p></p></blockquote>Dreamers are the only people who can change the world in a planned manner.

 

[MeteorWayne]

RichAlex, sorry I missed the 150 year part.<br /><br />I don't think that helps much, but makes it more plausible.<br /><br />mea culpa. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font color="#000080"><em><font color="#000000">But the Krell forgot one thing John. Monsters. Monsters from the Id.</font></em> </font></p><p><font color="#000080">I really, really, really, really miss the "first unread post" function</font><font color="#000080"> </font></p> </div>

 

[nexium]

There are about 20 times as many people alive now over 100 years old compared to 1908, but the total population has increased about ten times, so life expectancy over 100 has only doubled in a century, and that is likely mostly due to keeping half dead people alive. With rare exceptions quality of life stinks after age 100. The 3 years in ten is likely due to statistical analysis errors.<br />The above is an educated guess. I have no links. Neil

 

[nexium]

We should never say never, but intersteller flight seems very improbable for the coming century. If human civilization continues, we may have an increadibly costly method within grasp by 2108. We likely will not go, because of the high risk of failure and extreem cost, even when we know how to travel to the stars. Neil