Poll: How long before we leave the solar system? Centuries or Millenia?

[dragon04]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Hi holmec, haven't seen you posting in awhile, good to see ya back.I'm pretty much in agreement with the stars being too far. At least they are too far for present or projected propulsion systems. As for having a good destination, we are just getting started by way of finding extra solar planets. A search that may soon (A decade or two) result in discovery of an earthlike world which I think would give humanity the incentive to speed up the drive to go to another star.On your points:1...I agree with you and am of the opinion it will have to be propulsion of a type not yet even imagined.2...I'm also thinking generational ships because if we find an earthlike world, we will probably want to colonize it.&nbsp; <br /> Posted by qso1</DIV></p><p>On your first point, it doesn't "have" to be an as yet unimagined propulsion type. The (Original) Orion nuclear pulse ship would work just fine. However, at velocities of 5-7%<em>c</em>, it would have to be a generation-type ship to even get to the Centauri system.</p><p>The operative notion though, is that we could build one tomorrow. The concept was proven out in the late '50's. It's only a matter of engineering (within our ability) and justification of detonating atom bombs within Earth's atmosphere to launch it. In short, if we <strong>knew</strong> with absolute certainty that a planet killer was going to hit the Earth in 30 or 40 years from today, we'd be building Orions no matter what it took in terms of money and resources for the transit to Mars.</p><p>In reality, that's the propulsion system of last resort, so in that way, yes. We'll be looking for propulsion we don't already have.</p><p>I also think it depends on vision as much as it does propulsion. Building the first starship would be a massive undertaking. And there's no guaranteee that we won't have to boost the parts up to LEO and build the sucker in space. Something with a modular design, perhaps. We know how to do that. The ISS is proof positive.</p><p>So if we DO go, it will be out of serendipity or the most dire need. If we DON'T go, most likely, the cockroaches are the apex species..&nbsp;</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <em>"2012.. Year of the Dragon!! Get on the Dragon Wagon!".</em> </div>

 

[centsworth_II]

<p><font color="#666699"><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>...if we knew with absolute certainty that a planet killer was going to hit the Earth in 30 or 40 years from today, we'd be building Orions no matter what it took in terms of money and resources for the transit to Mars....<br /> Posted by dragon04</DIV></font><br />I think the greatest political support will be for attaching Orions to the planet killer to divert it.&nbsp; No need to decide who is saved.&nbsp; Everyone is saved.&nbsp; Also, Orionizing the killer will have the support of the vast "I don't want to go to Mars, I want to save the Earth" constituency.</p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>&nbsp;</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[dragon04]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>I think the greatest political support will be for attaching Orions to the planet killer to divert it.&nbsp; No need to decide who is saved.&nbsp; Everyone is saved.&nbsp; Also, Orionizing the killer will have the support of the vast "I don't want to go to Mars, I want to save the Earth" constituency.&nbsp;&nbsp; <br /> Posted by centsworth_II</DIV></p><p>That's actually a great idea so long as the math and physics work out. But we're still faced with building one or more Orions to launch inside Earth atrmosphere to meet and move an impactor. However, for the sake of redundancy (I like redundancy), it wouldn't be imprudent to load up a couple thousand people on Orions and get them to Mars to counter the unexpected.</p><p>&nbsp;</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <em>"2012.. Year of the Dragon!! Get on the Dragon Wagon!".</em> </div>

 

[willpittenger]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>That's actually a great idea so long as the math and physics work out. But we're still faced with building one or more Orions to launch inside Earth atrmosphere to meet and move an impactor. However, for the sake of redundancy (I like redundancy), it wouldn't be imprudent to load up a couple thousand people on Orions and get them to Mars to counter the unexpected.</p><p> Posted by dragon04</DIV><br /><br />We might be able to assemble the Orion in orbit.&nbsp; That makes more sense than anything else.&nbsp; In fact, I doubt that we need the Orion's own engines until the ship is past the asteroid belt.</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <hr style="margin-top:0.5em;margin-bottom:0.5em" />Will Pittenger<hr style="margin-top:0.5em;margin-bottom:0.5em" />Add this user box to your Wikipedia User Page to show your support for the SDC forums: <div style="margin-left:1em">{{User:Will Pittenger/User Boxes/Space.com Account}}</div> </div>

 

[dragon04]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>We might be able to assemble the Orion in orbit.&nbsp; That makes more sense than anything else.&nbsp; In fact, I doubt that we need the Orion's own engines until the ship is past the asteroid belt. <br /> Posted by willpittenger</DIV></p><p>It would still require boosting THOUSANDS of fission weapons to LEO... Golly. I'm sure you've seen the protesters that come out of the woodwork every time we launch a probe with a Plutonium based RTG. Imagine if we were launching functional fission weapons by the hundreds up tro an Orion being built in orbit.</p><p>Don't get me wrong. I think that boosting modular components (given the luxury of time) to build an Orion in LEO is the way to go,&nbsp;</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <em>"2012.. Year of the Dragon!! Get on the Dragon Wagon!".</em> </div>

 

[centsworth_II]

<font color="#666699"><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>I'm sure you've seen the protesters that come out of the woodwork every time we launch a probe with a Plutonium based RTG. Imagine if we were launching functional fission weapons by the hundreds...<br /> Posted by dragon04</DIV></font><br />Given a planet killer headed for a hit on Earth, I think such protesters of a mission to save the Earth would be ignored... if they are lucky.&nbsp; A mission to save a few thousand would likely meet great resistance from all those not being saved. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[willpittenger]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>It would still require boosting THOUSANDS of fission weapons to LEO... Golly. I'm sure you've seen the protesters that come out of the woodwork every time we launch a probe with a Plutonium based RTG. Imagine if we were launching functional fission weapons by the hundreds up tro an Orion being built in orbit.Don't get me wrong. I think that boosting modular components (given the luxury of time) to build an Orion in LEO is the way to go</p><p>Posted by dragon04</DIV><br /><br />May be we could get the plutonium or uranium from somewhere else in the system.&nbsp; Solves that problem.</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <hr style="margin-top:0.5em;margin-bottom:0.5em" />Will Pittenger<hr style="margin-top:0.5em;margin-bottom:0.5em" />Add this user box to your Wikipedia User Page to show your support for the SDC forums: <div style="margin-left:1em">{{User:Will Pittenger/User Boxes/Space.com Account}}</div> </div>

 

[kurt_wagner]

<p>IMO I'd say about a century. There's not much point unless we master new propulsive techniques or have a big breakthrough in new technology that lets us approach or&nbsp;exceed <strong>c </strong>. That is, unless we really want to do generation ships. We'd need a motivation and as much as "because it's there" is enough for us here, there needs to be much more of a reason to justify the expense and national/international committment that this will require.</p><p>Kurt</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>http://www.flickr.com/photos/kurtwagner</p><p> </p> </div>

 

[centsworth_II]

<font color="#666699"><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>IMO I'd say about a century. <br /> Posted by kurt_wagner</DIV><br /></font>That's VERY optimistic!&nbsp; Depending on events (wars, economic collapse, crumbling national infrastructure, global disasters, etc.) NASA's budget will continue to be inadequate for the grandest missions.&nbsp; We're told we've been living in good times for the past 15 years and NASA is still just scraping by! We may not even have landed humans on Mars in one hundred years. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[derekmcd]

<p>Of course, ignoring all the variables with my estimate, it still might be a bit too optimistic.&nbsp; My assumption is pretty much based on us maintaining the status quo with enough improvement to keep progressing.&nbsp; No dark ages, no global catastrophe, no technological singularity advancing us into the realm of warp drives and wormholes.&nbsp; </p><p>We've got too much work to do in our own neighborhood and no legitimate reason to venture further.&nbsp; I understand that adventurism and expansion is in our nature, but travelling around the world on a ship didn't even require the resources of an entire nation.&nbsp; Interstellar travel will likely require a global effort in pooling all available resources together.</p><p>Of course, calculating future event beyond a decade or two can only be done with tea leaves.<img src="http://sitelife.space.com/ver1.0/content/scripts/tinymce/plugins/emotions/images/smiley-laughing.gif" border="0" alt="Laughing" title="Laughing" /> </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div> </div><br /><div><span style="color:#0000ff" class="Apple-style-span">"If something's hard to do, then it's not worth doing." - Homer Simpson</span></div> </div>

 

[scottb50]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>May be we could get the plutonium or uranium from somewhere else in the system.&nbsp; Solves that problem. <br /> Posted by willpittenger</DIV></p><p>That would be Venus or Mercury. I doubt Mars has much of the heavy stuff. Iron seems to be pretty abundant so I would think most of the heavier Elememts didn't make it that far to begin with. Who knows, we may discover the elusive unoptanium on Mercury or Venus, though exploitating Venus would be more difficult.&nbsp;</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[azorean5000]

<p>I would also vote for "never". Simply because the space industry will never grown at the point when interstellar travel is possible both in terms of tecnology and economics. We have been on space for 50 years yet we can barely leave LEO. </p><p>&nbsp;Of course im only talking about human interstellar travel. Robotic COULD be different...but even it will only be centuries in the future.</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[dryson]

<p>The real problem is not getting out there it's getting rid of the political structure of the past where stagnation suites the rich and keeps the poor down. Also the notion of " I don't want to leave because I won't be able to tend my garden" has to go. It would take maybe 20 - 30 years for the first venture out side of this solar system to take place. The technology level of this planet will not slow down either. The rate at which technology increase's doubles ever two years. This means in 10 years the technological advances will have increased by 20% over the current level of technology. If technology ever slowed down, that's when I would fear a global collapse. </p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>I have been working on a design for many different variations of ships that could get us to Mars alot faster then the normal ships can, but as with any program, that you don't work for like NASA, the idea becomes part of a lobby group and if it doesn't make someone or a group rich really fast then no one wants to hear about it.</p><p>Anyway, the name of the project is the Pilyhas-1. Google it or Dog It (Dogpile.com)</p>

 

[willpittenger]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>That would be Venus or Mercury. I doubt Mars has much of the heavy stuff. Iron seems to be pretty abundant so I would think most of the heavier Elememts didn't make it that far to begin with. Who knows, we may discover the elusive unoptanium on Mercury or Venus, though exploitating Venus would be more difficult.</p><p>Posted by scottb50</DIV><br /><br />You may be right.&nbsp; I have noted before that the farther into either the Solar System or the Jovian system (major moons only) that you go, the more dense objects tend to be.&nbsp; I wouldn't be suprised if the super giants in other solar systems turn out to be rocky, not gas giants. </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <hr style="margin-top:0.5em;margin-bottom:0.5em" />Will Pittenger<hr style="margin-top:0.5em;margin-bottom:0.5em" />Add this user box to your Wikipedia User Page to show your support for the SDC forums: <div style="margin-left:1em">{{User:Will Pittenger/User Boxes/Space.com Account}}</div> </div>

 

[scottb50]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>You may be right.&nbsp; I have noted before that the farther into either the Solar System or the Jovian system (major moons only) that you go, the more dense objects tend to be.&nbsp; I wouldn't be suprised if the super giants in other solar systems turn out to be rocky, not gas giants. <br /> Posted by willpittenger</DIV></p><p>I think it depends on the makeup of the protostar. I would suspect the outer planet moons were captured into an orbit, maybe having formed in the same general area as the planet, but by the time they were captured they had enough mass to orbit rather then become part of the planet. It also could be they started out as comets or other heavier masses expelled by the protosun and were captured into orbit and then accreted the atmpspheres and materials they now have.</p><p>That Pluto and what is becoming a plethora of outer bodys exist leads me to think they are actually very massive, not as much as comets, but matter that probably was ejected at the end of the protosun explosion. To orbit like comets do seems, to me, to imply they are more massive then we think they are. It could also be they were the first objects ejected and were captured into orbits, which would imply they have enough mass to be captured to begin with.</p><p>Asteroids are more the bigger pieces that didn't clump together, comets appear to be different in that they have elongated orbits while asteroids pretty much just stay in their orbits unless they are disturbed.</p><p>I would also think if that happened in our system the same happens in pretty much every system, what makes the difference is where a planet forms, for a protostar like our Sun Earth formed in the sweet spot, enough heavy Elements, Oxygen, Nitrogen in abundance. That that happens would depend on the protostar, it seems like a lot of those found have very large planets very close to the star, which would mean the star, or more aptly the black hole erupted and didn't have enough mass to eject that much mass, It kind of belched out gasses and didn't explode, like our Solar System did.&nbsp;</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[willpittenger]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>...I would suspect the outer planet moons were captured into an orbit, maybe having formed in the same general area as the planet...</p><p>Posted by scottb50</DIV><br /><br />I doubt the Galiean Moons were captured.&nbsp; Their orbits are nice and circular.&nbsp; Same problem as the Earth capturing our Moon.&nbsp; Does someone have an Estimate of how long it would take a moon like Io to go from a capture orbit to a circular orbit? </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <hr style="margin-top:0.5em;margin-bottom:0.5em" />Will Pittenger<hr style="margin-top:0.5em;margin-bottom:0.5em" />Add this user box to your Wikipedia User Page to show your support for the SDC forums: <div style="margin-left:1em">{{User:Will Pittenger/User Boxes/Space.com Account}}</div> </div>

 

[kelvinzero]

<p>Im not too worried when we get to another solar system. There is so much to do here first.&nbsp;We dont need any magical new technology. We just need to master the basic problem of how to live in a 100% recycling environment. Life has managed this for billions of years.</p><p>&nbsp;If we can master this then we can live practically anywhere in the solar system. These ice worlds like ceres and the moons of the gas giants are better worlds than earth, once this very basic problem is solved. Earth is like a babies crib designed to make it very hard to fall out of and hurt ourselves. On these ice worlds we can build civilisations hundreds of miles deep and very easy to leave.</p><p>The fact that we are running out of petroleum is a very good thing, in the long term. There are obvious alternatives that unfortunately have been easy to quash till now simply by turning on a tap and releasing more cheap petrol into the market. When we know how to make do with just solar power and recycled resources we have a recipe for living on other planets.</p><p>We will be forced to develop these technologies whether we have an interest in space or not. Once they are developed, the question of space colonisation will change from why to why not.</p>