Q: Will interstellar travel ever occur?

[argosy]

Everybody are forgetin that interstellar travel is already happenin. Remember Voyagers? They are maybe slow, but still are headin to interstellar space...

 

[mlorrey]

Actually, the dumps of the 20th century will become the mines of the 22nd century. Iron rust is the same as iron ore, and natural ores typically range in concentration from a few percent up to a few tens of percents.<br /><br />Furthermore, the abyssal ocean floors are literally littered with large nodules of highly concentrated metals, from millenia of the natural electroplating process of the deep ocean, sitting there waiting to be recovered. There is no shortage of metals, and there will be no shortage of metals. Some dry land natural deposits will run out, this is true, but there are other deposits and other resources.<br /><br />Furthermore, the development of nanotechnology will mean that ordinary dirt will become separable into its constituent elements. <br /><br />People who cannot see and understand this lack vision and imagination of what the future holds, the typical sort of pessimistic luddism that led Malthus to his absurd conclusions that have long since been proven false.

 

[nexium]

Decades ago, we could have made manned one way trips to asteroids that barely miss Earth. Had we done so, we would by now have good understanding of ways to recyle and store necessities for decades. Necessity is the mother of invention. My guess is surviving a century in a generation ship, would still look improbable, so an expedition to a nearby solar system would still be a century in our future instead of 2 centuries or longer. Neil

 

[nexium]

Adjusted for inflation, the price of most things has decreased over the recent century. Tin is a notable exception, perhaps ten times more costly even adjusted for inflation and production has decreased. Tin is now used mostly for solder in electronics. No one makes tin roofs. Brass and bronze are rarely used for new items because of the high cost of tin. Tin cans have varnish instead of tin. Tin foil is replaced by aluminum foil which is not better in most respects. Plastic tooth paste tubes are generally inferior to tin tooth paste tubes. Tin made more reliable capacitors until quite recently. I can't think of anything else which is depleted, significantly, but we may see a few others in a decade or two. Recycling is only saving about half, typically, and the momentum to recycle is failing, I think.<br /> We may mine land fills in the future, but perhaps not. The ocean bottom does have manganese noduals. Are any other metals found significantly on ocean floors?<br />Lots of substitutes are possible: Do you know of any other extensive substitutes other than for tin that have already happened? Yes there is whale oil, hemp, asbestous, mercury, arsinic but other reasons cloud the substitute for these substances. Neil

 

[toymaker]

"Which is one reason the Chinese are looking to the moon for metals.... "<br />And they don't have to consider public opinion so much as other countries when it comes to longterm costly projects.<br />That is why I say-Glory for China ! <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /><br />Btw-they already outproduce USA in number of engineers.<br />

 

[mlorrey]

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>Adjusted for inflation, the price of most things has decreased over the recent century. <br /><p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br /><br />By definition, inflation is the measure of inflation of prices, so "most" things cannot drop in price without deflation happening. What has dropped is the price of raw and refined materials, while the *relative* price of many durable manufactured goods has gone up as technology is used to add more features and capability to things (handheld computers that are also phones, cameras, GPS navigators, walkie-talkies, and music players, for instance). Services have also been a major contributor to inflation.<br /><br /><blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>Tin is a notable exception, perhaps ten times more costly even adjusted for inflation and production has decreased. Tin is now used mostly for solder in electronics. No one makes tin roofs. Brass and bronze are rarely used for new items because of the high cost of tin. Tin cans have varnish instead of tin. Tin foil is replaced by aluminum foil which is not better in most respects. Plastic tooth paste tubes are generally inferior to tin tooth paste tubes. Tin made more reliable capacitors until quite recently. I can't think of anything else which is depleted, significantly, but we may see a few others in a decade or two. Recycling is only saving about half, typically, and the momentum to recycle is failing, I think. <p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br /><br />Tin is going up in price because its becoming less competetive: its refinement technology, perfected long ago, cannot be made drastically cheaper, while other materials have gotten significantly cheaper. <br /><br />You may like tin toothpaste tubes over plastic: I don't, I still remember as a kid blowing out the bottom end of tin toothpaste tubes because the toothpaste had hardened in the nozzle from oxidation.<br />Tin foil may have been better, I don't know, they've been making alumin

 

[rogers_buck]

From an exploration standpoint, there is no reason to go to another star system. By the time technology would be sufficient for such a journey, computational technology would allow for the total simulation of a remote stellar system, planets, and all that the planets may host to an acceptable margin of error. I can conclude this because, in the end, everything is information and information based technology will continue to outstrip all other forms of technology by orders of magnitude. We are still flying 50 year old rockets, but the computers are incredibly more advanced than those that originally flew on those same rockets.<br /><br />The reason our decendents MAY make the trip to another star is that the passage of time will have little or no meaning for them and they may be sent as colonists to safegaurd our own information. I am inclined to think of these decendents as more machine than in nature. They might be made of biological materials but they will really be manifestations of our collective rather than individuals. Early human society was akin to algae colonies, it is reasonable to assume that like the cells of a body we will eventually abstract our individuality to a higher collective. Journeying to another star is a requisite for being immortal as a civilization. Ultimately you must insure your own immortality to avoid being interfered out of history. This is an "extropy" argument with the higher order end of the scalar field paramaterized by a successull civilization. Engineered vaccuum technology, exponential growth, eventual dominance filling the universe with technology/information. Loosers are gone from history - asteroid killing dinosaurs sort of thing...<br /><br /><br /><br />

 

[mlorrey]

Rogers is correct in this: information technology advances faster for two reasons:<br /><br />a) information is massless, therefore it is extremely cheap to produce, transport, manipulate and use to productive end.<br />b) information can be used to increase its own productivity. Thus, information technology is lamarckian in nature, and being massless, is not restrained by classical economic scarcity issues over the long term: its exponential growth rate will always outstrip demand and thus will continually drive further and further to commodity market valuation and beyond, even to the point of being ubiquitously free, like air.<br /><br />Travelling to other star systems within this universe, however, will require such huge expenditures of resources that its advancement will suffer from extreme development drag due to its poor resource utilization efficiency, at least until and unless humanity figures out how to hack the the root of this universes' operating system.

 

[toymaker]

http://www.terradaily.com/reports/Yale_Study_Not_Enough_Metals_In_Earth_To_Meet_Global_Demand.html<br />Researchers studying supplies of copper, zinc and other metals have determined that these finite resources, even if recycled, may not meet the needs of the global population forever, according to a study published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.<br /><br />According to the study, even the full extraction of metals from the Earth's crust and extensive recycling programs may not meet future demand if all nations begin to use the same services enjoyed in developed nations.<br /><br />The researchers &#65533; Robert Gordon and Thomas Graedel of Yale University and Marlen Bertram of the Organisation of European Aluminum Refiners &#65533; suggest that the environmental and social consequences of metals depletion became clear from studies of metal stocks--in the Earth, in use by people and lost in landfills--instead of tracking the flow of metal through the economy in a given time and region.<br /><br />"There is a direct relation between requisite stock, standard of living and technology in use at a given time," said Gordon, professor of geology and geophysics. "We offer a different approach to studying use of finite resources--one that is more directly related to environmental concerns than are the discussions found in the economics literature."<br /><br />Using copper stocks in North America as a starting point, the researchers tracked the evolution of copper mining, use and loss during the 20th century. Then the researchers applied their findings and additional data to an estimate of global demand for copper and other metals if all nations were fully developed and used modern technologies.<br /><br />According to the study, titled "Metal Stocks and Sustainability," all of the copper in ore, plus all of the copper currentl

 

[aorton27]

I feel intersteller travel will occur when humans are able to create and alter gravity. Humans can either make the material through ottometric technology or harvest it from microscopic fragments of nuetron stars.<br /><br />With the power to create and control gravity then humans will have the ability to go from 0-1,000,000+ miles per hour in 1/10 of a second and with out feeling any more than 1 g of acceleration.<br /><br />In 10 years I feel we'll have the ability to create microgravity with in a controlled eviroment like in the zero gravity of space. Nanometrics will allow that to happen. That will be the start of a whole new game.<br />

 

[bonzelite]

i think non-locality of spacetime events, a la teleportation, will become highly advanced in subsequent centuries, allowing for possibly an entire spacecraft or armada of them to be relocated nearly instanty across time. <br /><br />as long as information can be transmitted across light waves, such a premise can be expanded to include physical information of craft or beings. today a fantasy, tomorrow a reality.

 

[nacnud]

<font color="yellow">I can conclude this because, in the end, everything is information and information based technology will continue to outstrip all other forms of technology by orders of magnitude.<br /><br /><font color="white">There are fundamental limits on computation, I don't know about this case but I wouldn't bet the farm.</font></font>

 

[serak_the_preparer]

Interesting thread. Some aimless ramblings...<br /><br />Dragon04 wrote: '<i>If you know your planet is terminal, I would think that any taken risk is preferrable to the known alternative.</i>' I agree. Does anyone recall an often-overlooked scifi TV show: <i>Starlost</i>? The premise of the show was that Earth was running out of resources and her civilization was facing extinction. A space ark was then built to move a limited number of colonists to another solar system, along with whatever could be salvaged from Earth's ecology, civilization and cultures. (But a problem occurs during the journey, causing the ark to drift off course, while also launching a series of adventures portrayed in the brief run of the series.) To me, this rings very true. If faced with a great enough crisis, humanity could feel impelled to reach out to the nearest star(s). A crisis of survival is the obvious scenario.<br /><br />There has also been some discussion here of fossil fuels and energy resources available to our civilization. Worth noting is that our current love-affair with fossil fuels represents a bountiful energy-bubble which will eventually pop. What will power our civilization next? Like everyone else here, I don't know and can only guess. But if we don't figure out the answer by the end of this century, our civilization will be in some very big trouble, since by then the bubble will have burst.<br /><br />(Related to that subject, someone wrote here that people do not live on oil-rigs. Well, as a former off-shore oil-rig worker in the Gulf, I can vouch for the fact that people <i>do</i> live on them. All the time. Granted, however, is the fact that this still does not constitute colonization.)<br /><br />Meanwhile, though technological advance can be expected to continue (at a much slower rate than we've become accustomed to), society may actually slide backward. Toward something more feudal and rigidly structured in terms of class. The planet must now sustain a

 

[mlorrey]

We are nowhere near the fundamental limits on computation, and won't reach them until long after we acheive both consumer-grade desktop AI and embeddable human IA (intelligence amplification). Both developments will serve to both accelerate Moore's Law AND to find new technologies to reach true fundamental limits on computation, breaking through the currently conceived limits that are merely based on a stunted view of technological development from this side of the socio-technological event horizon.

 

[yevaud]

FYI:<br /><br />Moore's Law is estimated to hit a physical wall in the year 2023. As well, it was originally one generation per every 18 months, and that was pushed back to every 24 months.<br /><br />So we're getting relatively close. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><em>Differential Diagnosis:  </em>"<strong><em>I am both amused and annoyed that you think I should be less stubborn than you are</em></strong>."<br /> </p> </div>

 

[mlorrey]

Actually, it was originally 24 months. In the 1990's it picked up to about 18 months, so, no, we aren't getting close, we are just barely starting to get to the fun part of truly exponential changes in technology. The doubling rate will get much quicker before it starts to slow down.<br /><br />BTW: Just who claims that it will hit a wall in 2023? I've been involved in the transhumanist movement for more than a decade, and few I know of make such claims.<br /><br />As I said: any prediction of any technological wall today is based upon todays knowledge. As knowledge also has a doubling rate, expect such cynical predictions to be proven false several times between now and 2023, just as Malthus was proven wrong within his own lifetime.<br /><br />For those who actually want to read about this topic from someone who actually knows what is going on, read Ray Kurzweil's book "The Singularity Is Coming".<br /><br />The Singularity is not a wall, it is a point at which Moore's Law related socio-technological change goes asymptotic: any predictions made today about what will happen after that point are likely wrong, with the most cynical being the wrongest.

 

[yevaud]

MLorrey:<br /><br />Thanks. I didn't know that it had been originally every 24 months, then transitioned during the 90's. Hmmph. More grist for the mill.<br /><br />The 2023 reference is basically due to physical constraints. A chip must be etched by one method or another to become an IC. By the year 2023, the physical limit on the use of any sort of etching method that we know of will have been reached. Laser, MASER, UV, IR, Gamma Rays for gosh sakes!<br /><br />*Hoping Quantum Computing lives up to it's expectations* <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><em>Differential Diagnosis:  </em>"<strong><em>I am both amused and annoyed that you think I should be less stubborn than you are</em></strong>."<br /> </p> </div>

 

[mlorrey]

Most of us in the community expect photonics to replace electronics in a significant way well before 2015. Switching to photonic computation from electronic means the capacity for thousand fold improvements in processing speeds, size reductions, and power requirements, as well as much greater thermal tolerance.<br /><br />Another technology that is going to be looking up is nanomechanical computation: rod logic, etc.<br /><br />Also, the conceptual problem you have in your projection of 2023 is in assuming that etching is the only way to make any sort of chip. Molecular NanoTechnology (MNT) will allow for molecule by molecule, atom by atom compiling of chips or any sort of object.<br /><br />Beyond this, shifting to a more neural computational architecture will avoid any physical limits on individual chip construction, even if the other technologies describe do not pan out. Neural processing will likely also lead to AI and IA faster, anyhow.

 

[yevaud]

Then I suspect as of when that becomes the reigning electronics/physical paradigm, a new version of Moore's Law will have to be formulated. New technology: new rules. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><em>Differential Diagnosis:  </em>"<strong><em>I am both amused and annoyed that you think I should be less stubborn than you are</em></strong>."<br /> </p> </div>

 

[mlorrey]

Moore's Law, while it originally applied simply to the doubling rate of state-of-the-art transistor density and the halving rate of chip prices, has come to be associated in the popular parlance with any temporal phenomenon where technology or knowledge doubles at a consistent rate, or a culture's overall technological sophistication increases in a similar manner.<br /><br />While it is true that the exponentially growing chip density is actually the result of a number of technologies with their own little third order S curves laid over each other (as Ray Kurzweil demonstrates) such that the zoom arcs of all connect to each other more or less evenly as a result of free market dynamics, those who predict 'walls' to further development are actually predicting the end of technological innovation, a prediction that has no actual historical or scientific basis: mankind is always finding ways around perceived physical limits...<br /><br />One reason the critics think they are right is they make the mistake of comparing computational development with the apparent S curve in maximum propulsion speeds: by mid 20th century projections, mankind should be solving the problem of light speed propulsion about this time. <br /><br />The major difference between the two is that relativity imposes significant requirements for any propulsion system and a curve of diminishing returns. <br /><br />Conversely, information technology, which is as I've said before, lamarckian, is its own best tool for its own improvement: improved computation itself improves man's ability to design new improvements. This is a vicious cycle that propulsion design does not exhibit.

 

[yevaud]

Fascinating stuff for an old Electronics Type such as me.<br /><br />Who knows, really? The duration of that S-curve with new technologies now in the works could be as short as several months - or as long as a generation. Heavy stuff, my man, heavy stuff. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><em>Differential Diagnosis:  </em>"<strong><em>I am both amused and annoyed that you think I should be less stubborn than you are</em></strong>."<br /> </p> </div>

 

[SpaceKiwi]

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>One reason the critics think they are right is they make the mistake of comparing computational development with the apparent S curve in maximum propulsion speeds: by mid 20th century projections, mankind should be solving the problem of light speed propulsion about this time.<p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br />How we all wish we <b>were</b> solving the problem of light speed propulsion at this time. <img src="/images/icons/frown.gif" /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><em><font size="2" color="#ff0000">Who is this superhero?  Henry, the mild-mannered janitor ... could be!</font></em></p><p><em><font size="2">-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------</font></em></p><p><font size="5">Bring Back The Black!</font></p> </div>

 

[rogers_buck]

When discussing these matters, I think it is appropriate to all but ignore short term technology improvements and limitations. The human condition is tens of thousands of years old so thinking about 1000 years hence is a good execersize. One can imagine that eventually self-assembling machines that store their information on the vacuum of space itself will be a viable technology. <br /><br />The interesting thing about such machines is that they can ultimately store all the information the universe contains in that form, aka a new universe. As a consequence of such technologocial activities the entropy field in which we live is affected. This is easy to understand when you think of sum over histories from the original states of the universe to the final states. Entropy in this sense is just the interference of paths not taken sooner than later. The act of charting historically plausible paths between original and final states is what we observers know of as reality. Sum over histories are taken in imaginary time, not real time and when viewed from that vanage point reality is incredibly transient. Entropy will ultimately collapse as the universe makes a direct transition from initial to fnal states and there will be little need for history books.<br /><br />I think it is a failing of modern cosmology that little consideration is given to the role of life. Life is part of physics after all..<br /><br />

 

[rogers_buck]

I forgot the point... The point is that you do go to another star system to make it likely that your information won't be interfered out of existence. Two planets - much safer, need something really big to wipe you out. Two stars, almost immortal depending on the angular separation. The worry here is that we might just be basking in a life friendly universe that belongs to someone else. If we don't get hard to kill, we can be interfered out of existence. The dinosaurs were. The highest evolved creature in the pond was when the bulldozer shows up. If we don't even try to get out into the cosmos it is a cinch it won't be information to which we are ancestral filling the the universe. We'll just be another irrelevent path.<br />