Debunking Interstellar Travel: Separating Fact from Fiction

[AgentCachat]

A private venture is possible, but I think not many people with serious financial means would invest in an interstellar exploration project with an unknown result.
They got rich anyway by investing in things of which the outcome would probably be profitable.

I was thinking of people so rich they could afford to risk much of their capital on projects that interest them. What more can Bill Gates do with 75 billion dollars? He gives away a few million to charity each year, big deal, pocket change to him.

 

[anorlunda]

I was thinking of people so rich they could afford to risk much of their capital on projects that interest them. What more can Bill Gates do with 75 billion dollars? He gives away a few million to charity each year, big deal, pocket change to him.

Can I interest you in investing your pocket change in a project whose result will not be known for 10000 years? If yes, maybe I can start a kickstart. I'll soon be as rich as Gates.

 

[AgentCachat]

Can I interest you in investing your pocket change in a project whose result will not be known for 10000 years? If yes, maybe I can start a kickstart. I'll soon be as rich as Gates.

LOL. My pocket change wouldn't get you very far. I was not implying that rich folks could finance interstellar travel with pocket change. But with $ 75 billion, you could afford to "only" have say $25 billion and still live comfortably. Carlos Slim could afford $10 billion, etc, And there must be lots of people who could afford millions. Add many billions of money stolen from taxpayers.

 

[anorlunda]

My pocket change wouldn't get you very far. I was not implying that rich folks could finance interstellar travel with pocket change. But with $ 75 billion, you could afford to "only" have say $25 billion and still live comfortably. Carlos Slim could afford $10 billion, etc, And there must be lots of people who could afford millions. Add many billions of money stolen from taxpayers.

You completely missed my point. I was trying to compare a 10000 year project to selling the Brooklyn Bridge.

 

[AgentCachat]

You completely missed my point. I was trying to compare a 10000 year project to selling the Brooklyn Bridge.

Oh I got it. But you don't invest in projects like this with the ROI being a concern.

We've about exhausted this topic. Think I'll go on to how to make politicians honest, or another easy subject.

 

[phinds]

Hmm, you must have misread some numbers. Very high acceleration is needed to turn people into jello. A dv/dt of 0.05 c is too small for long trips.

You miss the point. See post #73

 

[ebos]

Hmm, you must have misread some numbers. Very high acceleration is needed to turn people into jello. A dv/dt of 0.05 c is too small for long trips.

The inactivity of muscles will turn the humans to Jello. Humans are too lazy to exercise long and hard on a daily basis to maintain their musculature..

 

[ebos]

I find it questionable to have "universal love", whatever that is. People sometimes behave aggressive and even go to war not because they are inherently evil. They do it because it is an *evolutionary necessity*. "Fight or flight". Both reactions make sense. If you see a rockfall upon you, it makes sense to flee. But someone who always runs from any danger, loses. If you run away, you lose everything you left behind - stockpiled food, shelter, territory, children.

We don't need to stop fighting. We need to stop fighting *when it can be avoided with diplomacy, economic pressure, etc*. When we do fight, we need to do it cleverly, not letting our natural animalistic emotions turn the conflict into slaughter.

As to "learning how to feed everyone", I don't see starving people in Western countries. If anything, *obesity* is a problem here, not starvation. "Making sure everyone has enough instead of just 1%"? What is "enough"? Having food, shelter, and health care is enough? I am not in richest 1%, and I have all of that, and much more. Looks like these two problems are solved.

Evolution is not just a product of physical growth.

 

[phinds]

The inactivity of muscles will turn the humans to Jello. Humans are too lazy to exercise long and hard on a daily basis to maintain their musculature..

I know it's tedious on these long threads but it helps if you read the thread. Then you won't post something that has already been posted (and was just referenced in the post directly above yours)

 

[ebos]

I find it questionable to have "universal love", whatever that is. People sometimes behave aggressive and even go to war not because they are inherently evil. They do it because it is an *evolutionary necessity*. "Fight or flight". Both reactions make sense. If you see a rockfall upon you, it makes sense to flee. But someone who always runs from any danger, loses. If you run away, you lose everything you left behind - stockpiled food, shelter, territory, children.

We don't need to stop fighting. We need to stop fighting *when it can be avoided with diplomacy, economic pressure, etc*. When we do fight, we need to do it cleverly, not letting our natural animalistic emotions turn the conflict into slaughter.

As to "learning how to feed everyone", I don't see starving people in Western countries. If anything, *obesity* is a problem here, not starvation. "Making sure everyone has enough instead of just 1%"? What is "enough"? Having food, shelter, and health care is enough? I am not in richest 1%, and I have all of that, and much more. Looks like these two problems are solved.

Saddens me that many still don't understand. As I said, it hasn't been long since we left the safety of the trees.

 

[ebos]

Look at the US and the Russians in cold war. Did they sent that into space? Manned spaceflight originally was a side product of intercontinental nuclear weapons and only intended to demonstrate technological superiority. But once in space the super powers started to cooperate there (e.g. with the Apollo-Soyuz Test Project). Things on Earth and in Space will always be different.
Changing the nature of humans is problematic from an ethical point of view - even when done for the best. Preventing humans from "jumping to hatred or war at the least provocation" would require general mental modifications. There is no doubt that humans will be modified both physically and mentally in the future - especially if we colonise space. But that will happen for a minority only and it will result in additional problems (e.g. conflicts between different post-human species).

Solving our problems on Earth first is a popular idea but out of touch with reality. There will always be problems.

Reality does NOT have to equal History. History is rooted in ideology; history in logic.

 

[ebos]

I know it's tedious on these long threads but it helps if you read the thread. Then you won't post something that has already been posted (and was just referenced in the post directly above yours)

First let me tell you how thrilled I am to receive a kind word from the infamous 'Phinds' (NO sarcasm intended - OK, a teeny little bit). Secondly, you are correct and I apologize. I will definitely pay more attention the next time. Occasionally my emotions overrule my logic.

 

[ebos]

I may have used the wrong verbage when I suggested we postpone our space programs. Nothing could be further from the truth. However, I believe we do need to re-shuffle our priorities. Developing space technology from war technology is a pretty drastic method of motivation. But "Star Wars" under Ray-guns and sending real-estate agents to Mars all on the public dime is ridiculous. There is no "Us vs. Them" because we created "Them". And camouflaging the space program to suit the needs and paranoia of the military-industrial complex is just so much Hooey for lack of a better word. However, I digress. We are losing the thread of this convo. Oh, I'm from Canada in case anyone hasn't guessed by now and I've hidden the odd Vietnam vet in my past. Nuff said? Let's get back to Physics!

 

[phinds]

First let me tell you how thrilled I am to receive a kind word from the infamous 'Phinds' (NO sarcasm intended - OK, a teeny little bit). Secondly, you are correct and I apologize. I will definitely pay more attention the next time. Occasionally my emotions overrule my logic.

Well, actually I looked back and what we have is me referencing my post just before yours on this page which points to one of my earlier posts which in fact was answering one of YOUR earlier posts which ... this is just too convoluted for me Anyway, I find it more clear in a thread to reference a previous thread than to restate what was in that thread, but the bottom line is that you got the facts right before I did brought it up and I was (earlier) just supporting what you said in the first place and now more recently I was chiding your for saying it again because I didn't remember that it was you who said it in the first place. I hope all that is clear to you because I'm not sure I know what the hell I'm talking about at this point ...

 

[Drakkith]

The inactivity of muscles will turn the humans to Jello. Humans are too lazy to exercise long and hard on a daily basis to maintain their musculature..

Not true. The amount of musculature has no bearing on whether or not a person will be "turned to jello". That all depends on the strength of the connective tissue in their body, which may or may not be affected by space travel.

Evolution is not just a product of physical growth.

I don't know what you mean by this in this context. Could you elaborate?

Saddens me that many still don't understand. As I said, it hasn't been long since we left the safety of the trees.

I guess if a few million years isn't very long. And I'm sorry that someone disagreeing with you saddens you, but please do not make snide comments.

However, I believe we do need to re-shuffle our priorities. Developing space technology from war technology is a pretty drastic method of motivation.

While space technology was originally developed for war purposes, and continues to be used for those purposes, commercial applications make up a substantial portion of the global space industry and that portion continues to increase. According tohttp://www.spacefoundation.org/sites/default/files/downloads/The_Space_Report_2015_Overview_TOC_Exhibits.pdf, commercial activities make up 76% ($250.8 billion) of the global "space economy" and grew by 9.7% in 2014, compared to a government investment of the remaining 24% ( $79.2 billion) which had a growth of 7.3%.

But "Star Wars" under Ray-guns and sending real-estate agents to Mars all on the public dime is ridiculous. There is no "Us vs. Them" because we created "Them". And camouflaging the space program to suit the needs and paranoia of the military-industrial complex is just so much Hooey for lack of a better word.

Again, I don't know what you're trying to get at.

 

[ebos]

It's quite obvious by now what happens to the human body after even short periods of zero gravity. To build a spinning ship creating centrifugal force like in the movies would be prohibitively massive and would overburden an already overburdened fuel supply. Ray-guns and his clones and real estate agents (and developers) and their clones going into space would only un-mask our true intentions. It would just be another repeat of what happened in N.A. in 1492. Go Capitalism or should I say Colonialism! Rah, rah, rah! A few million years, since the trees, doesn't really signify a very large step in evolutionary values as we are all still after the same thing - what I (and my descendants) can get at whatever cost to you. It's better to wait and see what other species actually evolves before going off as representatives of this planet because we're definitely out of the running. We blew it. We're not much better than a virus my friend. Four lousy billion years ago, we WERE viruses. Hope my point was defining enough for you. Oh, and what I consider the truth, which I am entitled to, was not being snide except perhaps in your opinion. Just like I would never consider your opinion snide. Objectivity is a myth. And, yes, this thread has gone off topic.

 

[Drakkith]

It's quite obvious by now what happens to the human body after even short periods of zero gravity.

Then you should have no problem finding a reference for your earlier claim that space travel would cause the human body to be more susceptible to being "turned into jello" by acceleration. I'd like to see that reference please.

To build a spinning ship creating centrifugal force like in the movies would be prohibitively massive and would overburden an already overburdened fuel supply.

I see no reason why a spinning ship would inherently be much more massive than a comparable non-spinning ship. Do you have something that supports this claim?

Ray-guns and his clones and real estate agents (and developers) and their clones going into space would only un-mask our true intentions. It would just be another repeat of what happened in N.A. in 1492. Go Capitalism or should I say Colonialism! Rah, rah, rah!

I have no idea what you're even getting at and I ask that you turn down the sarcasm a bit please.

A few million years, since the trees, doesn't really signify a very large step in evolutionary values as we are all still after the same thing - what I (and my descendants) can get at whatever cost to you.

I don't find this to be an accurate assessment of what evolution does. Altruism and cooperation between individual organisms, populations of organisms, and even between different species is an integral part of evolution.

It's better to wait and see what other species actually evolves before going off as representatives of this planet because we're definitely out of the running. We blew it. We're not much better than a virus my friend. Four lousy billion years ago, we WERE viruses.

I'm not sure how you can already judge us to have already blown it when we have no other species to make a meaningful comparison to.

Hope my point was defining enough for you.

Not really, no.

 

[mfb]

To build a spinning ship creating centrifugal force like in the movies would be prohibitively massive and would overburden an already overburdened fuel supply.

Supporting a ring with a diameter of 100 meters with today's commercial tethers would need about 0.15% of the mass (breaking length of ~300 km). Completely negligible. Some of the strength can come from other structural elements which reduces the fraction of mass needed purely for structural integrity even more.
This is a science forum, if you make claims like this they should be backed by numbers.

It's quite obvious by now what happens to the human body after even short periods of zero gravity.

"Turning into jello" is not part of it.

We're not much better than a virus my friend.

Who defines "better" by which metric?

 

[Possum_Tom]

Perhaps one day it may be possible if and when we develop better propulsion systems. but for now, yes interstellar travel is impossible

 

[nikkkom]

Problems with humans living in zero-g should be addressed well before we are to try the first interstellar expedition - living in zero-g is a problem for Solar System's colonization too.

Building spinning habitats for many millions or even billions of people living all over Solar System would be very expensive, therefore I expect lots of effort will be spent on making that unnecessary. Genetic tweaks? Anti-zero-g pills? Maybe by 25th century "humans" will be cyborgized to the level when they are brains in small tanks, and the rest of the body is mechanical? I don't know. I propose that we assume that by the time we start building the first interstellar ship, zero-g is a solved problem.

 

[enorbet]

Since I have been guilty of pessimism (to me it seems painful but healthy realism) in this thread and since someone asked that we "slow down", I think I should expand a bit. Although I strongly suspect we are 1000+ years away from practical Interstellar Travel, in no way do I support slowing down. In fact I am all for speeding up.

It has been mentioned in qualifying points of difficulty that "barring serendipity in the form of a major breakthrough" is needed to qualify any manner of timeframe predictions. Regarding smarter predictions or progression graphs I mentioned those of G. Harry Stine (if you don't know of the man you really should explore his contributions in many areas...possibly start here - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G._Harry_Stine ) though I used his in that case to point out the dangers of assuming past change rates will or even can continue indefinitely.

The reverse is true as well in that it is not trivial nor rare that breakthroughs can occur suddenly and at almost any time. However, they do not happen so often "in a vacuum" though, so even pure research is exceptionally important from my POV. It amazes me how ignorant most people are of the myriad spinoffs from Apollo and other "noble" Science causes (please forgive my cynical quotation marks. It's just to show that the real motivation behind the Moon Race was as mundane as it gets but wise politicians knew The Public needed to be "sold a Bill of Goods) . Even those who are aware of microelectronics, medicine, food, textiles and so many more advances that without Apollo our lives would be vastly different, often overlook the valuable lesson of corporate and National cooperation in addition to just competition that changed how we do business and even think of each other. Those changes are much harder to even identify let alone quantify.

OK so I'm biased in favor of Scientific Exploration but it does seem we grow in important ways when we engage in it and tend to fall behind when we don't.The simple fact remains that if we don't follow dreams of discovery the likelihood for unexpected breakthroughs is diminished. It's not like the silly adage "You can't win The Lottery if you don't play" since iirc the odds of anyone winning top prize are somewhat less than being crushed by a meteorite. The odds of beneficial applications from Scientific experimentation and exploration are considerably better and unlike the one-time Lottery win can continue to spawn 2nd, 3rd and 4th, etc. generation benefits. The "game" gets forever changed.

Frankly we waste money on so many ridiculous "investments", both personally and collectively, it makes perfect sense to me to spend more on Science, even if we just start with those with better odds ( a few examples http://cen.acs.org/magazine/93/09322.html and don't forget Obama's increased funding for new alloy research as a high likelihood, high ROI endeavor). Back (more specifically) On Topic, it seems to me that while there is still much to be discovered here on Earth (especially undersea) the key to Interstellar Travel is cheap power and the quantities we are talking about whichever ends up being the means of the moment seem more likely to be found and experimented with Out There instead of Back Here. Just learning to survive higher levels of radiation could possibly result in major benefits. The odds of a permanent settlement on the Moon or Mars may still be less than compelling but those are far more achievable in a reasonable time (and cost) than Interstellar Travel and they do constitute a step in the right direction.

 

[AgentCachat]

The inactivity of muscles will turn the humans to Jello. Humans are too lazy to exercise long and hard on a daily basis to maintain their musculature..

They exercise long and hard on the ISS on a daily basis.

 

[Jenab2]

About the only way I can see humans colonizing exoplanets is to send them in digital/data form, and have a computer-controlled replicator print them, either as sperm/egg sets, or as fertilized ova, or as embryos, or, perhaps, as full-term babies. They'd have to be cared for by machines until they could look after themselves.

If the replication process was good enough, which is to say very good indeed, fully mature adults could be printed, copies of original humans who never left the solar system, with the same memories and education and skills.

A journey though interstellar space at 0.001c, or 300 km/sec, would require tens of thousands of years to reach its destination. The speed is, after all, one light year per thousand years. During transit, cosmic rays would occasionally damage software in even shielded computers. So each starship would need to have redundant computers with identical software, which would wake up every century or so and check each other for errors. Whenever a location in any computer's memory was found to have deviant contents, the computers would vote on which version of the content at that location was the true copy, and the largest plurality would correct all of the deviant computers into compliance.

When the computers were finished correcting themselves, they would begin checking out each of the items held as data, including the data instructions for printing colonists. Again, deviations would be corrected to a norm determined by the largest plurality of the copies.

With that done, the computers would agree on their next wake-up time, and shut down.

 

[DrStupid]

About the only way I can see humans colonizing exoplanets is to send them in digital/data form, and have a computer-controlled replicator print them, either as sperm/egg sets, or as fertilized ova, or as embryos, or, perhaps, as full-term babies.

When they are uploaded into some kind of highly advanced hardware, why should they download to old-fashioned wetware again?

 

[ebos]

They exercise long and hard on the ISS on a daily basis.

Quite agree... but they still can't walk when they get back home and that's after a few months. Imagine being in space for hundreds of years.

 

[mfb]

They can walk - not for very long, but the human body quickly adapts back to Earth conditions. You don't need to go to space for that, being in a hospital bed for several weeks to months has a similar effect.
Anyway, artificial gravity, if necessary, is just a minor issue.

 

[newjerseyrunner]

A private venture is possible, but I think not many people with serious financial means would invest in an interstellar exploration project with an unknown result.
They got rich anyway by investing in things of which the outcome would probably be profitable.

No... but their children might. ;)

Look at history, when gold was discovered in CA in the late 1840s plenty of rich people from the east coast migrated in hopes of expanding their fortune. After the discover of the Americas, there were many old-money morons who set sail for just a chance at riches beyond their dreams... and an equal chance of being slaughtered by natives.

 

[PeterC34]

I agree with Dr. Stupid and Jenab2 that it makes far more sense to launch tiny interstellar craft made with replicators. Digital human 'maps' including brain states, nano-replicator repair of systems (recreating new pieces as replacements), then, upon arrival, the replicators use the mass of a nearby asteroid for molecules and the local sun for power to create landing craft (many, for redundancy), human-capable habitats, as well as food, water on the surface. The replicators would then build people and say, "Thank you for flying with us on Interstellar Space Lines. Hope your luggage made it, too. Have a nice day..."

A fascinating look at assemblers and replicators can be found in Eric Drexler's book Engines of Creation. It alludes that once we are able to manipulate molecules via self-replicating assembler nanobots, the entire 'game' of life changes forever. I agree.

Even without nanotechnology, humans only have about 100 years of so left on Earth, IMHO. It will likely become possible to decode the genome sufficiently to create custom DNA pairs and birth the first Human 2.0 models, immortal like jellyfish, immune to disease, strong and efficient, smarter by an order of magnitude than the average booger-eating human, and (possibly) with a digital interface for backing up consciousness, to assure immortality. Once Human 2.0 is 'in production', what point will there be to continue to make Human 1.0 models anymore? Brave new world will eventually become brave new WORLDS...

 

[Budgie2016]

As I see it . . .
The problem, seeming one of distance and speed is actually a problem of time. Even traveling at the extremely slow, relative to the distances to be overcome, speed of light, much of our own galaxy let alone the universe is beyond travel in a reasonable human scale time frame. Massive multiples of the speed of light are needed even to begin a proper exploration of the universe.

If one could go back in time, launch, cryo travel, return forward in time then at least your colonies (if any) are existing within the “relative time” of the mother planet, an actual meaningless point as communication Twix and tween would be next to impossible over vast distances.

As time seems to stop at a black hole’s threshold, one might wonder if all elements of past time are available beyond said threshold.

Impeccable conversion of matter data to energy back to impeccable matter data recovery (teleportation) coupled with a though examination of why the light speed is so slow and if there are any changes we could make to energy to increase this would also be of some help.

Coupled with nano technology – possibly anything is possible.

However – at the least – terra forming of our sister planets, ring world tech as well as human bio engineering to exist in other planetary environs still offer us enough challenge and living space to keep us busy until our technology matches our universal exploratory ambitions.

 

[phinds]

a couple of comments:

As time seems to stop at a black hole’s threshold, one might wonder if all elements of past time are available beyond said threshold.

Since, as you correctly stated, time only SEEMS to stop at the Event Horizon, the rest of your sentence does not follow.

... a though examination of why the light speed is so slow and if there are any changes we could make to energy to increase this would also be of some help.

c is what it is; it cannot be changed. Not sure why you think it is "slow".

 

[rootone]

If by any means interstellar travel became feasible, staying well away from black holes would be a priority.

 

[newjerseyrunner]

If by any means interstellar travel became feasible, staying well away from black holes would be a priority.

I'm sure, but absurdly obvious. That's like saying when driving a car, it's advisable to avoid driving off of a cliff.

 

[mfb]

I'm sure, but absurdly obvious. That's like saying when driving a car, it's advisable to avoid driving off of a cliff.

To take the probability into account: When driving a car, avoid hitting elephants that have penguins on top.
Is it a good advice? You certainly should not hit elephants with penguins on top, but the probability to do so at random is negligible.

 

[Jenab2]

When they are uploaded into some kind of highly advanced hardware, why should they download to old-fashioned wetware again?

Because that's what we are. We make machines to serve us, not to replace us. Thought might be the best part of being human, but it isn't the only good part of being human. And there's really no guarantee that machines would even think our way.

Anyway, humans wouldn't depart Earth aboard a starship as androids any more than they would go as living passengers. Instead, the data necessary for the 3D printing of human fertilized ova from data-encoded descriptions of their DNA and some means to turn it into babies and some means to provide protection, food, and instruction for them until they are grown.

 

[nikkkom]

Er... where is my [Alien invasion alert] card?

Apparently, aliens in globular clusters, not we, are best positioned to master interstellar travel.

I've found this: http://arxiv.org/abs/1601.03455
"Globular Clusters as Cradles of Life and Advanced Civilizations"

"Globular clusters are ancient stellar populations with no star formation or core-collapse supernovae. Several lines of evidence suggest that globular clusters are rich in planets. If so, and if advanced civilizations can develop there, then the distances between these civilizations and other stars would be far smaller than typical distances between stars in the Galactic disk. The relative proximity would facilitate interstellar communication and travel. However, the very proximity that promotes interstellar travel also brings danger, since stellar interactions can destroy planetary systems. However, by modeling globular clusters and their stellar populations, we find that large regions of many globular clusters can be thought of as "sweet spots" where habitable-zone planetary orbits can be stable for long times. We also compute the ambient densities and fluxes in the regions within which habitable-zone planets can survive. Globular clusters are among the best targets for searches for extraterrestrial intelligence (SETI). We use the Drake equation to compare globular clusters to the Galactic disk, in terms of the likelihood of housing advanced communicating civilizations. We also consider free-floating planets, since wide-orbit planets can be ejected and travel freely through the cluster. A civilization spawned in a globular cluster may have opportunities to establish self-sustaining outposts, thereby reducing the probability that a single catastrophic event will destroy the civilization or its descendants. Although individual civilizations within a cluster may follow different evolutionary paths, or even be destroyed, the cluster may always host some advanced civilization, once a small number of them have managed to jump across interstellar space."And naturally, when they're done settling every usable real estate in their cluster, they will have a very advanced interstellar ships and they come to us. Run for your lives! ;)

 

[mfb]

We should mention Breakthrough Starshot here. Produced quite some news, although several components are significantly beyond current technology it could deliver a probe to Alpha Centauri within the 21st century.

 

[Borg]

We should mention Breakthrough Starshot here. Produced quite some news, although several components are significantly beyond current technology it could deliver a probe to Alpha Centauri within the 21st century.

I saw the interview with Hawking on the news yesterday. It was nice to see him crack a smile when answering the question of how he felt to be a pop icon. His response was that he wouldn't consider himself a pop icon unless he was on the Kardashians. Please no Stephen, don't do it.

 

[DrStupid]

Because that's what we are.

That's what we are today. But we are talking about a distant future.

Instead, the data necessary for the 3D printing of human fertilized ova from data-encoded descriptions of their DNA and some means to turn it into babies and some means to provide protection, food, and instruction for them until they are grown.

The question remains: What is the benefit of a biological body compared to artificial hardware? With a biological body a human is just a human and can only live in an environment which is habitable for humans. In a sufficiently advanced simulation space he can be be a human or everything else and with suitable hardware he can exist almost everywhere.

 

[nikkkom]

As you will get old, you'd *wish* you can replace your failing body parts with artificial ones.
Do you really require legs made from bones and muscles, or do you need legs which merely "feel okay" and more importantly, which perform their function: move you around as needed?

 

[newjerseyrunner]

Because that's what we are.

No, we aren't. We are an entity of consciousness. The fact that that consciousness emerges from our biology in no way makes you dependent on that biology once it's going. Our consciousness requires hardware to run, biology is not the most efficient hardware. If I were given the opportunity, I would consider transferring my consciousness myself, especially the older I get. All human religions have invented afterlives to fulfill human's desire for immortality, technology can actually provide such an experience: a lifetime as a biological being, followed by an eternity as an metaphysical entity.

It'll start slowly of course, instead of having a hearing aid boost sounds for you, it'll connect directly to your neural pathways. Instead of letting the memory deteriorate with age, we'll enhance it. Enhancements will lead to new innovations which will cause old systems to become obsolete. We are no were near the ability to replace any part of the brain right now, but 500 years ago, if your heart stopped beating, you died. Now we either add a pace-wire, replace it with a donor, or in the not too distant future, 3D print a new one out of stem cells.

I don't think there are any humans living right now that'll live past the age of 1000, but it's within the grasp of the generations in our immediate future.

 

[mheslep]

Necessity is the mother of invention. The tone of the article suggests we should've stayed in Africa, a voyage to another continent would be extremely dangerous ...

If the state-of-the-art amounts to no more than a raft made from sticks and palm fronds, suitable for crossing a large river at most, then yes stay at home and keep improving for another 100 generations. Crossing the 10 mile wide bay is dangerous in such craft, crossing the ocean is impossible. If crossing the ocean is 4000 times harder than crossing a mile wide river, then a 10 light year manned journey is 300 million times harder than going to the moon.

 

[mfb]

If the state-of-the-art amounts to no more than a raft made from sticks and palm fronds, suitable for crossing a large river at most, then yes stay at home and keep improving for another 100 generations. Crossing the 10 mile wide bay is dangerous in such craft, crossing the ocean is impossible.

It is impossible until someone does it.

Difficulty does not scale linearly with distance.

 

[mheslep]

It is impossible until someone does it.

Difficulty does not scale linearly with distance.

Well the pre Columbian's that might have built a Kon Tiki like sail powered craft were, what, 20,000 years out of Africa and river crossing rafts.

Granted distance dies not scale linearly with difficulty, though they are correlated, and distance provides a shorthand for showing that interstellar travel is not a few times harder than going to the moon but many orders of magnitude harder.

 

[phinds]

Well the pre Columbian's that might have built a Kon Tiki like sail powered craft were, what, 20,000 years out of Africa and river crossing rafts.

Granted distance dies not scale linearly with difficulty, though they are correlated, and distance provides a shorthand for showing that interstellar travel is not a few times harder than going to the moon but many orders of magnitude harder.

I agree. I think the leap from our Solar system to interstellar is likely to be more of an exponential change than a linear one.

 

[sophiecentaur]

I cannot claim to have read all the posts in this thread (144!) but I feel I have to comment on the limited way in which the 'enthusiasts' seem to look at the problem. The technology is only a small part of this problem. More important are the phyiology and psychology of humans. Whatever speed of travel we can postulate, we are talking in terms of timescales involving many human generations. That would take us as far into the future as prehistoric Man is in the past and what earth-bound organisation is likely to spend what would be virtually their total resources on such an uncertain investment? How could we predict how the passengers of such craft would feel and would they still want to continue on a mission on which they find themselves through no choice of theirs.
Then, what would be the motivation for such a project? Governments, these days do not get involved in projects with timescales more than one or two periods of office. There is no motivation, afaic. I cannot see the attraction of sending human 'spores' out in different directions, in the hope that even one of the many 'expeditions' could reach a suitable destination. Who would benefit from such an exercise? The genes of some humans other than myself? Where's the profit in that? Jam today vs someone else's jam tomorrow.
I admit that discussions about exotic technologies are fascinating but the Star Wars / Star trek / Dan Dare meets the Wild West and Kontiki scenarios are just fanciful.
If and when Earth gets threatened by some imminent and inescapable disaster, the place we would be going would be along the lines of Mad Max and a very sad decline until the remnants all expire. That's the way humans work and we need to accept that - but we won't.

 

[Rubidium_71]

Crossing the 10 mile wide bay is dangerous in such craft, crossing the ocean is impossible.

The thing about humans is, they actually like to take on what is dangerous. Humans also like to defy what is considered impossible.
I still don't think it is out of the question that a Generation Ship (or a ship of some other type) might someday make such a perilous journey to another star. Dangerous? Absolutely. Impossible? Not necessarily.

 

[phinds]

The thing about humans is, they actually like to take on what is dangerous. Humans also like to defy what is considered impossible.
I still don't think it is out of the question that a Generation Ship (or a ship of some other type) might someday make such a perilous journey to another star. Dangerous? Absolutely. Impossible? Not necessarily.

But you are talking about some thing that is significantly different that "dangerous". Yes, it IS dangerous but more importantly it is boring and for the immediate crew, personally pointless. Altruism is all well and good but I mean really? Dedicating your whole life so that someone ELSE can someday land on another planet while you spend your in a relatively small spaceship? Do NOT sign me up.

 

[nikkkom]

How could we predict how the passengers of such craft would feel and would they still want to continue on a mission on which they find themselves through no choice of theirs.

Well, you are on a "spaceship" Earth. You were brought into it without anyone consulting you whether you want it or not. The situation is similar. How do you, a passenger of this "craft", feel? The situation is: most people don't care about how you or I feel about it. If we feel okay, we live here, likely have children and thus the "crew" reproduces. Whoever feels miserable, can kill hiumself (or more likely, continue to feel miserable for years on end).

Then, what would be the motivation for such a project? Governments, these days do not get involved in projects with timescales more than one or two periods of office. There is no motivation, afaic.

It was hardly different at any other time in human history. Columbus had hard time raising cash for a 1-2 years exploratory trip.

I cannot see the attraction of sending human 'spores' out in different directions, in the hope that even one of the many 'expeditions' could reach a suitable destination. Who would benefit from such an exercise? The genes of some humans other than myself?

Exactly. That's the reason of existence of any lifeform: to spread (minimally: to survive). Lifeforms which don't do that, die out - the ultimate form of failure.

 

[mheslep]

The thing about humans is, they actually like to take on what is dangerous. Humans also like to defy what is considered impossible...

Sure. A manned mission to the moon was, is, dangerous. Interstellar travel with today's technology and physics is like jumping off a cliff with a garbage bag as a parachute. My guess is interstellar travel remains jumping-off-a-cliff out of reach for the next century even with on trend, incremental but non-revolutionary improvements in technology. Currently (i.e. through 2200) an interstellar project is not simply dangerous but pathological, as the Sci American article labels such projects.

With some revolutionary discoveries in physics, tech, and human civilization, who knows.

 

[mfb]

The technology is only a small part of this problem. More important are the phyiology and psychology of humans.

They are not separate problems. The technology chosen influences everything alive on the spacecraft . Concerning the lack of choice, see nikkkom: We don't have the choice today either. Launching such a spacecraft would give some humans a choice: stay on Earth, or travel into the huge interstellar void. Some concepts reach ~10% the speed of life, sufficient to get to the closest stars within a human lifetime, even with today's life expectancy. Improvements in medicine could significantly extend the human lifespan, improvements in spacecraft designs could increase the speed.

The genes of some humans other than myself?

It is still 99.95% your genes.

Governments, these days do not get involved in projects with timescales more than one or two periods of office.

ISS, ITER, LHC, the global investments in photovoltaics, a few agreements on reducing CO2 emissions, ... it happens.

That's the way humans work and we need to accept that - but we won't.

We (as species) survived an ice age and the Toba volcano with primitive tools. We can do so much more with today's technology, and even more with future technology.