- #176
mheslep
Gold Member
- 364
- 729
Occasionally, I get away with the excitement over the latest sketches and take them too far.Vanadium 50 said:Or maybe a sketch of a garbage bag as a parachute.
Occasionally, I get away with the excitement over the latest sketches and take them too far.Vanadium 50 said:Or maybe a sketch of a garbage bag as a parachute.
I have to hope that you are right about this. But it is not likely to affect me, personally, nor any descendents that I know of. Time will tell.mheslep said:We have a good idea from history what happens after calamities. There's a mix of behaviors, but there's plenty of evidence that in the face of calamity human behavior most often follows the opposite of the 'Mad Max' theme. People quickly reach out to join small groups for support, become more adaptive, more social. Social divisions in place prior to the calamity fade in importance. There are also of course negative behaviors that manifest in the mix as well, but in most cases the positive wins out over the negative.
Yes I grant that the apocalypse (Mad Max, Zombies, Rapture May 2011) has a house of horrors fascination to many, but the dogmatic, contrary to all evidence assertions that everyone must accept these predictions of the future as fact; that I find bizarre.
See e.g. http://wsnet.colostate.edu/CWIS584/Lori_Peek/Data/Sites/1/1-research/publicationpdfs/zahranetal2009.pdf
With aerodynamic calculations showing that the descend velocity is fine.Vanadium 50 said:Or maybe a sketch of a garbage bag as a parachute.
2200 is as far away from today as the discovery of electromagnetism. I think we made some progress since 1832. I think we made so much progress that any attempt of predictions for 2016's technology back then was pointless. Unless there is some global, long-lasting collapse, there is no reason to assume the world of 2200 would be in any way more familiar to us than today's world to someone from 1832. With the rapid increase in research, I would expect the same even for 2100.mheslep said:Currently (i.e. through 2200)
We have humans that are perfectly willing to blow themselves up and commit mass murder for the sake of their superstitions. I would think there would also be people that would sign on to a project with more substantial goals and rewards. I wouldn't sign up either but that doesn't mean that no one would. When it comes to sacrifice for a greater good, look at some of our dedicated submariners. They spend a good portion of their adult lives in nuclear submarines. I've been on a sub, not the greatest situation to live in. But they do it. The main reason for nuclear subs to exist at all is to be sure we can launch a nuclear attack even if the US is nuked first. Signing up for a generation ship would be more altruistic than sitting on a clutch of nuclear warheads at the bottom of the Atlantic waiting to join in on WW3.phinds said:Dedicating your whole life so that someone ELSE can someday land on another planet while you spend your in a relatively small spaceship?
I disagree, Sir. People already care about their children and grandchildren because they like the idea of their lineage carrying on into the future. If you tell folks their progeny will be part of starting an off world colony, I think there would be interested parties.phinds said:the immediate crew, personally pointless.
I don't disagree, I think even the fanciful Mars missions being discussed would result in likely death and disaster. However, humans have a tendency to climb into a barrel and ride it off of Niagra falls, so if someone like Musk ever slapped together a ship for an interstellar try I think there would be interested people.mheslep said: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.
I retract 2200 as too far out to extend any trend that I might perceive. I was vaguely looking for some point in time that seemed like a compromise between extension of current discovery trends and also being slightly over the horizon.mfb said:...
2200 is as far away from today as the discovery of electromagnetism. I think we made some progress since 1832...
Certainly. Everyone is capable of bias.sophiecentaur said:... most PF contributors could be classified in the more favoured set of the population (easy access to a computer and a full education, for a start) so we have a possibly biassed view.
My point was you placed a strong belief system on display in this thread, that everything *will* go to hell, and that anyone who disagrees is in denial. I only draw your attention to some contrary evidence, and not to a certainty that the unknowable future will be fine....I guess my problem (?) is that, being an Atheist, I do not have the luxury of a belief ...
Yes, by some measures the most calamitous event in history. Somewhere in Hastings book there's undoubtedly also some description of millions of people who, despite being far removed from harm, got involved at great cost to put a stop to it all. They won, and though they too were flawed humans, they were not equivalent to the tyrants they defeated....I am in the middle of Max Hastings' book on WW2 ("All hell let loose") and, whilst he is clearly biased against some major figures, he produces endless lists of documented examples of inhuman acts, carried out by all sides, en mass. ...
There is the foolish, self-destructive risk, like Russian Roulette, and then there is exploration inspired by an evidenced based theory that entails a considered risk.Rubidium_71 said:...
I don't disagree, I think even the fanciful Mars missions being discussed would result in likely death and disaster. However, humans have a tendency to climb into a barrel and ride it off of Niagra falls,
sophiecentaur said:I really don't see the motivation for this project. A very few - either mature or foetal - 'colonists' would be involved.
It could never be a rescue exercise for all of us.
Exploration in the past was always based on economic factors.
sophiecentaur said:The attitude in Europe to refugees from the Middle East conflicts shows that most of us are quite happy with the existence of places like the Calais Jungle. and refugee camps elsewhere.
I would depend entirely what the terms of the project were. I can't see any point in sending fewer than many (tens of?) thousands of people on such a trip. It would be necessary to have an established community which could regulate itself and be capable of coping with many social problems. Failure of the expedition simply because a squabble amongst a small crew would always be a risk. This, again, shows how the proponents of this sort of scheme are only concerned with nuts and bolts and speeds. The whole project would have to have a 'reason'. It would need to be justified and funded and SOLD to the governments of the World.nikkkom said:How did you reach this conclusion about "very few"? Why interstellar ship can't have a crew of 50, 100, 200?
It does not have to be.
Wrong.
sophiecentaur said:I would depend entirely what the terms of the project were. I can't see any point in sending fewer than many (tens of?) thousands of people on such a trip. It would be necessary to have an established community which could regulate itself and be capable of coping with many social problems.
Failure of the expedition simply because a squabble amongst a small crew would always be a risk.
Uh ... you think maybe things were simpler back then and they didn't need to know the thousands of things that a high tech group will need if they are going to have a viable human ecosystem both on the trip and after arrival?nikkkom said:For thousands of years, a typical unit of human society was a tribe. A village. Some 100-1000 people. They existed for hundreds of years, and were usually disrupted by wars / attacks by other human groups (which is not very likely to happen on an interstellar flight), not by internal strife.
There is very little about this subject that's more than 'opinion' - apart from the Engineering aspects.nikkkom said:For thousands of years, a typical unit of human society was a tribe. A village. Some 100-1000 people. They existed for hundreds of years, and were usually disrupted by wars / attacks by other human groups (which is not very likely to happen on an interstellar flight), not by internal strife.
Nothing is impossible but a basically urban sized group would have built in structures; government, infrastructure, a police force, even. For that, you need an appropriate population. The Starship Enterprise situation was well thought out, in that respect. (I would never normally quote Startrek Science on PF but they did get some things right.)nikkkom said:However, squabble amongst a big crew is also possible. Why do you think it's less likely?
I was thinking the opposite, that the chances of getiing some word from an interstellar colony are likely more difficult than in the age of sail. The age of sail at least had the odd shipwreck survivor, sister ships, and possibly people at the last remote port of call that might tell part the tale. In the interstellar case, first the message takes the time in light years to arrive. Second, the free space path loss (for, say, f=3GHz) for a light year is 365 dB, which requires transmitter power in the terrawatt range.mfb said:...
- we have communication. If a ship sank somewhere in the ocean 200 years ago, no one had any clue what happened - the mission just disappeared. If something happens with an interstellar spacecraft , chances are good they can send back some information about it.
sophiecentaur said:There is very little about this subject that's more than 'opinion' - apart from the Engineering aspects.
The tribal scale of life worked fine when there were many tribes about and if one failed, there would be others beyond the next hill, to continue the race. If the 'colony' is to have good chance of survival (after the investment that's been put into it) then it needs to be able to expand into the new world; hitting the ground running. You can't do that sort of thing on a tribal scale.
nikkkom said:You are reiterating that it can't be done with less than about 1000 people, without actually giving justification. Repeating something you believe in does not make it true.
You don't need to have specialists in every imaginable profession. For many things, just having recorded knowledge how to do it, how to learn it, is sufficient. For example, you don't need architects or CPU designers on the ship. You don't need them even after it reached the destination. It's okay if only some of the future children grow up and decide to be architects.
Or not.litup said:In the meantime, science catches up and actually does make a faster than light drive and has already gotten a colony started 800 years before the robot ship arrives, hilarity ensues...
Humans often admire "foolish, self destructive risk" even if it fails. The men who crewed the Hunley submarine in 1864 could certainly have been considered foolish. The vessel had already killed many people, but they accepted the mission anyway. They were successful in destroying the USS Housatonic, but died when the ship was lost during the mission. I've been to the Hunley museum in South Carolina - these men are regarded are heroes, not fools. Even though the Hunley ultimately failed the ship is revered and the technology was improved into the present day.mheslep said:There is the foolish, self-destructive risk, like Russian Roulette, and then there is exploration inspired by an evidenced based theory that entails a considered risk.
A highly directional transmitter doesn't need that much power, especially if you don't need a huge bandwidth.mheslep said:In the interstellar case, first the message takes the time in light years to arrive. Second, the free space path loss (for, say, f=3GHz) for a light year is 365 dB, which requires transmitter power in the terrawatt range.
Don't forget observation bias, Kepler is more likely to find planets closer to the stars. Something like 1% to 3% of all stars have "earth analogs" (source), the number gets significantly larger if you include colder planets where fission, fusion, or large-scale solar power can deliver the necessary power, and with exomoons orbiting larger planets. There are 50 stars within ~15 light years, so we expect to have several planets that can support human life (with some artificial heating), and on average one "Earth analog". That does not mean 21% oxygen and 101.3 kPa atmospheric pressure, but that is not necessary.|Glitch| said:the overwhelming majority of the exoplanets in the 0.75 to 1.50 Earth mass range do not fall within the habitable zone of their star.
Maybe. Maybe not. Be careful with "impossible" statements.|Glitch| said:Since oxygen is highly reactive and will combine with just about anything, in order for molecular oxygen to exist in the atmosphere there would have to be some form of life continuously producing it.
Im not talking about what people ignorant of science and engineering available at the time might think. All the basic science was in place for a crude submarine: Archimedes, Newton, Boyle, the crude materials, pumps, metallergy. One could place on paper a logical, evidence based argument for how the Hunley could work, and from that model roughly predict it's capabilities. Success was one the possible outcomes.Rubidium_71 said:Humans often admire "foolish, self destructive risk" even if it fails. The men who crewed the Hunley submarine in 1864 could certainly have been considered foolish.
How is 'support' defined in this context? Life can be supported on the Moon with sufficient artificial means.mfb said:... several planets that can support human life (with some artificial heating), ...
Human spaceflight missions so far had a success rate of 98-99%. Comparing that to a submarine that sank is not really fair.mheslep said:'hey we sunk the Husatonic, now let's take this rig under the Arctic Ocean ice to the North Pole because we dare'
The planets mentioned are probably much better than the Moon. More like Mars.mheslep said:How is 'support' defined in this context? Life can be supported on the Moon with sufficient artificial means.
I disagree, if something doesn't affect me personally, why would I care? Our children will love on a hot, dry planet, most people don't seem to care. I only care because it affects me: I want to scuba dive the Great Barrier Reef, I don't want terrible wars over water...Rubidium_71 said:I disagree, Sir. People already care about their children and grandchildren because they like the idea of their lineage carrying on into the future. If you tell folks their progeny will be part of starting an off world colony, I think there would be interested parties.
About their children and grandchildren, yes, people do care. That's why we send children on to college, for example, we want to make sure they have a bright future. If folks truly didn't care about anything except themselves, they wouldn't invest in their kids at all. About distant descendants, people can be indifferent. Perhaps people aren't concerned with climate change ruining the world because they anticipate that there will be some useful solutions developed in the future - like off world colonies (in our own system if not in others).newjerseyrunner said:I disagree, if something doesn't affect me personally, why would I care? Our children will love on a hot, dry planet, most people don't seem to care.
So, then, it is your position that an interstellar journey is an absolute impossibility? No chance of humanity achieving this goal? One can also show on paper how a generation ship based on current technology could work. There would be a remote chance of success there as well. I guess, given what humanity has achieved in the past, I will give future humans the benefit of the doubt. My mention of the Hunley was not intended to draw a statistical comparison between the success of submarines and the success of space missions (although @mfb's point is certainly valid). I mentioned it to illustrate the human spirit. We dare to attempt feats that are declared impossible all the time, it's a trait that's served humanity well over time. We can split hairs between what is considered foolish or brave all day long, in the end it's up to each individual (or hindsight) to draw that distinction. In that respect I don't find the mention of Icarus particularly useful, since it's fairy tale about flying people with wings made of wax. I do find it amusing that many science fiction stories use Icarus as the name for various interstellar spacecraft (like the Icarus shown in Babylon 5), pointing out the theoretical irony if such a project would ever succeed.mheslep said:Im not talking about what people ignorant of science and engineering available at the time might think. All the basic science was in place for a crude submarine: Archimedes, Newton, Boyle, the crude materials, pumps, metallergy. One could place on paper a logical, evidence based argument for how the Hunley could work, and from that model roughly predict it's capabilities. Success was one the possible outcomes.
I didn't. Rather: Attempting an interstellar manned mission with current technology is similar to attempting a North Pole journey in the Hunley.mfb said:Human spaceflight missions so far had a success rate of 98-99%. Comparing that to a submarine that sank is not really fair.
So I understand, but in what sense is a lifeless Mars-like planet "better" for interstellar colonists, again, in the context of how such a planet can "support human life". All aspects of life support on Mars still require artificial support - atmosphere, temperature, food, water. Mars-like surface gravity is better for human physiology, though there's a delta-V energy cost to be paid for landing and take off. Also carbon in the Mars-like atmosphere enables production of hydrocarbons (which Musk for instance intends to use to make methane); not sure if the Moon has carbon mineral resources.The planets mentioned are probably much better than the Moon. More like Mars.
Several people in the history of aviation, perhaps a dozen, have survived a free fall to the ground from aircraft, some from as high as jet cruise altitude, some 30K feet. I'd place the chances somewhere in there.Rubidium_71 said:..
So, then, it is your position that an interstellar journey is an absolute impossibility?
"We" send our children or those of close family. Do "we" pay for all kids? What would your average member of the public say to a request for College or University fees from a stranger? Same goes for medical fees. I don't think soThe UK used to pay for University Education for anyone who qualified with high enough A Levels grades but the great British public no longer accept that idea. The UK NHS is on the way out and Obamacare was not greeted well by the US either.Rubidium_71 said:That's why we send children on to college
You're absolutely right, we do not have a target and without one there certainly is no mission.mheslep said:and nobody knows yet where to point.
I don't think I suggested this is or should be the case. All I'm saying is that parents tend to care about the destinies of their children and grandchildren. The question was would people sign up for a generation ship journey if there was no immediate benefit to themselves. Some folks didn't think so, fair enough. I think that having descendants that would eventually have a chance to found an historic offworld colony would be a motivating factor for some people. Maybe a poll would shed some light on the question: we could post a poll question that asked if there was a generation ship being launched to a nearby star, would you sign up even though you knew for sure you would never personally reach the destination? I don't think the YES column would be completely empty.sophiecentaur said:Do "we" pay for all kids?
Absolutely. Any differences in the technology available cannot make up for the timescale involved. People set of on long voyages of Earth exploration for economic reasons (Everest and Science trips are another matter altogether). Trade, e.g. the 'other way round' to the East were the main spur. Before that, the steps were incremental but still economy - based migration.enorbet said:this is entirely an apples to oranges (flawed) attempt
Via taxes: in many countries "we" do. Same goes for medical fees. The US is one of the rare exceptions of first-world countries where this is not standard.No one suggests to start construction in 2017. "Current technology" in this context means we have an idea how to build things and we had working prototypes already, which means something like TRL 5-6 - a fission reactor is fine, a fusion reactor is not. Of course such a spacecraft would need 20+ years of dedicated development, then a lot of construction work, and you probably want such a spacecraft to fly around in the solar system for at least 10 years to see if that works before it leaves the solar system.sophiecentaur said:Do "we" pay for all kids?