31–40 of 391 posts
"just 12 light-years away" I love the "just". I know it's nearby on galactic scales but it's practically about 450,000 Earth years away with current technology :-)
And "just" 24 years over radio if there's anyone there to talk with ;).
"just 12 light-years away" I love the "just". I know it's nearby on galactic scales but it's practically about 450,000 Earth years away with current technology :-)
That is still beyond humans with present day life spans, but extend life span to ~1000 years or go full AI and you can totally ride the "devil's pogo stick" to stars Fusion rockets would probably be better. I mention Orion because we sort of know how to build it today... at ludicrous cost. No new physics and not that much fundamentally new engineering is needed. Orion is a fabulous and quite valid counter to the folks that seem to like to repeat the canard that interstellar flight is impossible. Hard as hell, sure, but not impossible by any means.
To a fully Kardashev type I civilization it might be around Apollo moon shot difficulty.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This was indeed the prevailing wisdom for some time. However, more recent research is somewhat more optimistic. Even an atmosphere 10% as dense as that of earth can circulate heat to the dark side efficiently enough, given the right composition. The night side temperature could be within the parameters required to sustain some form of life. Furthermore, tidal locking is dependent on oceans and atmosphere, and can tak…
"However, more recent research is somewhat more optimistic." I am deeply skeptical of that "recent research", which AFAIK is "computer models, where we have zero capability to verify the computer models against even a single data point". The incentives to keep kicking the computer model until it provides something publishable, with no countervailing force provided by real data to be explained by the model, are just t…
I was under the impression that planets to be life-friendly have to be close to their red dwarf star to a point they'll be tidally locked (one side always light other night), meaning their atmosphere would freeze on the dark side and planet would end up without an atmostphere.
Such planets might also have moons.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
And "just" 24 years over radio if there's anyone there to talk with ;).
I doubt I'm alone in this, but I do find it simultaneously amusing and depressing how mind bogglingly big the universe (or even the galaxy) is. It's clear that discovering entirely new levels of physics will be necessary to stand a chance of going anywhere.
Personally I doubt that meat will go to the stars. Planets, sure, and maybe bases or settlements. The stars take too long.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
And "just" 24 years over radio if there's anyone there to talk with ;).
I doubt I'm alone in this, but I do find it simultaneously amusing and depressing how mind bogglingly big the universe (or even the galaxy) is. It's clear that discovering entirely new levels of physics will be necessary to stand a chance of going anywhere.
I grew up reading and watching a lot of sci-fi. Today I recognize that most of it was garbage in terms of physics, but I'm still saddened that the universe isn't that easy - we can't just hop on a space cruise ship and do a tour of a nearby nebula...
I was under the impression that planets to be life-friendly have to be close to their red dwarf star to a point they'll be tidally locked (one side always light other night), meaning their atmosphere would freeze on the dark side and planet would end up without an atmostphere.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This was indeed the prevailing wisdom for some time. However, more recent research is somewhat more optimistic. Even an atmosphere 10% as dense as that of earth can circulate heat to the dark side efficiently enough, given the right composition. The night side temperature could be within the parameters required to sustain some form of life. Furthermore, tidal locking is dependent on oceans and atmosphere, and can tak…
"However, more recent research is somewhat more optimistic." I am deeply skeptical of that "recent research", which AFAIK is "computer models, where we have zero capability to verify the computer models against even a single data point". The incentives to keep kicking the computer model until it provides something publishable, with no countervailing force provided by real data to be explained by the model, are just t…
How common are "life-friendly" planets (Let's say: on a ratio of Life-Friendly Planet:Non Life-Friendly Planet)? And is there any way to check if life-friendly planets contain life without actually going there?
I was under the impression that planets to be life-friendly have to be close to their red dwarf star to a point they'll be tidally locked (one side always light other night), meaning their atmosphere would freeze on the dark side and planet would end up without an atmostphere.
This was my first thought, too, when I saw the article. But our thoughts about the effects of tidal lock on the emergence of life is little more than philosophy, having only one datapoint to extrapolate from, at that one not being tidal locked.