Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Where did all the starships go?

datawrapper.de

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

141–150 of 369 posts

Re: Where did all the starships go?

#141

Post by gpm »

nine_k wrote: post #132
MagicMoonlight wrote: post #122

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You don’t need to go faster than light. Once you approach anywhere near the speed of light, time slows down so much that journey time becomes irrelevant.

Interstellar space contains neutral hydrogen atoms. Hitting a spaceship, they would produce electromagnetic radiation. When the collision speed goes past about 0.25c, the radiation becomes hard gamma rays which are dangerous to living things, and cannot be efficiently shielded against. At this speed, the time dilation is slightly above 3%, so you're still not going to reach even Alpha Centauri in one human lifetime,…

Alpha Centauri is only 4.2 light years away. 0.25c is definitely enough to reach it. You could even do a round trip in only your adult years.

Re: Where did all the starships go?

#142

Post by antonvs »

davedx wrote: post #110
chasil wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Also, we've realized the scientific reality that traveling faster than light is likely impossible, and the vast distances to other habitable planets would mean tens of thousands of years of travel even with the most efficient technology. Interstellar space is also hostile to life, and any life present at the destination will not use the same DNA coding for protein (if gene expression even works that way). We also do…

> the vast distances to other habitable planets would mean tens of thousands of years of travel even with the most efficient technology. Spoken like someone who's never read Tau Zero

Spoken like someone who’s never read the Relativistic Rocket: https://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/Rocket/...

I really find it hard to understand how people confuse science fiction with reality. I love Tau Zero - I first read it over 40 years ago - but it’s fiction, ffs.

Re: Where did all the starships go?

#143

Post by WalterBright »

givinguflac wrote: post #140
WalterBright wrote: post #136

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> There is some indirect and inconclusive evidence of microbial life on Mars, and even in the Venusian atmosphere. This dates back to results from the Viking and Venera, as well as more recent research. Yes, I've been hearing that forever. Every probe shrinks the envelope on the possibility. > Earth life could be destructive to native life in these places, Better us than slime mold. > and vice versa (since they would…

2. How do you define loans, tax credits and other subsidies then? You claim it’s this person specifically advancing space faring capabilities- which literally would not be possible without the US government. So please elaborate, as you’re not making sense.

1. A loan is not a subsidy. Loans get paid back with interest.

2. Tax credits - the tax code is full of various credits. Anyone can use those credits.

3. Other subsidies - like what?

> which literally would not be possible without the US government

The US government buying launches at prices far cheaper than NASA is not a subsidy.

Re: Where did all the starships go?

#144

Post by yazantapuz »

thomasguide wrote: post #4

FYI, this is about the titles of these books, not the textual content of the books themselves. The implication of the article is that sci-fi is losing relative standing to fantasy, but another interpretation is that science fiction titles have become more abstract and less literal over time.

I was thinking that, for example Caves of steel, Childhood Ends, Spin and many others have no starships or space related terms in their title.

Re: Where did all the starships go?

#145

Post by antonvs »

HoldOnAMinute wrote: post #101
chasil wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Also, we've realized the scientific reality that traveling faster than light is likely impossible, and the vast distances to other habitable planets would mean tens of thousands of years of travel even with the most efficient technology. Interstellar space is also hostile to life, and any life present at the destination will not use the same DNA coding for protein (if gene expression even works that way). We also do…

That's true, but stop to consider all the things we ARE doing... * Space Station that lasts 25 years * 3,000 satellites providing Internet Service * Mars rovers that run for 10+ years * Flying helicopters on Mars

> Space Station that lasts 25 years

A small station, hosting a small number of people, orbiting very close to the surface of the Earth.

> 3,000 satellites providing Internet Service

…very close to the surface of the Earth.

> Mars rovers that run for 10+ years

On the closest planet to Earth that our equipment can survive on. Notably, we have nothing but melted slag on Venus.

> Flying helicopters on Mars

On the closest planet to Earth that our equipment can survive on.

I don’t mean to detract from the achievements of our space programs. But we have to be realistic: we’re exploring the easiest bits of our local neighborhood, that’s all.

Re: Where did all the starships go?

#146

Post by bananaflag »

WalterBright wrote: post #138
nephihaha wrote: post #134

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There are a lot of ethical issues surrounding Neuralink and how it would be used. It might be good for certain medical stuff but I can see how it can be abused.

> There are a lot of ethical issues surrounding Neuralink and how it would be used Like what? (There are always ethical issues with new medical technology.) > It might be good for certain medical stuff Yes, like giving sight to the blind! What a monster Musk is! P.S. two of my largest medical fears are becoming paralyzed or going blind. Neuralink has promise in making these treatable. I'm all for it!

> Like what? (There are always ethical issues with new medical technology.)

Like mind control, thought surveillance, neural torture (the last one would be easiest).

I think these are inevitable technologies, I don't blame Neuralink in particular.

Re: Where did all the starships go?

#147

Post by antonvs »

jfengel wrote: post #47
Alex-Programs wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is motivated pessimism. We knew in the 50s that breaking the speed of light was highly unlikely. We dreamed of the stars anyway. Now we refuse to dream, or to even attempt to solve the problems (a common pattern when discussing spaceflight is people who are blatantly searching for problems, rather than solutions), because we are pessimistic, devoid of imagination, and seek to legitimise our collective depression…

You don't need to break the speed of light to get to the stars. Time dilation and space contraction mean that you can get there in as little time as you desire. Everyone you knew on earth would be dead by the time you got back, but if it's just about you, the speed of light is no limitation at all. (The rocket equation, however, presents stupendous engineering challenges.)

> Time dilation and space contraction mean that you can get there in as little time as you desire.

This is confusing science fiction with physical reality. See e.g. https://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/Rocket/... for a reality check.

Re: Where did all the starships go?

#148

Post by antonvs »

Recurecur wrote: post #96
jfengel wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We do know why the universe is expanding. That's due to general relativity. That's well attested to high confidence. We don't know why the expansion is accelerating. For that we have only speculation.

It’s well understood that the expansion of the universe is not “due to general relativity”. General relativity does explain some details of that expansion.

The equations of general relativity fully model the expansion of the universe, so you’d need to explain what you mean.

Re: Where did all the starships go?

#149

Post by antonvs »

WalterBright wrote: post #138
nephihaha wrote: post #134

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There are a lot of ethical issues surrounding Neuralink and how it would be used. It might be good for certain medical stuff but I can see how it can be abused.

> There are a lot of ethical issues surrounding Neuralink and how it would be used Like what? (There are always ethical issues with new medical technology.) > It might be good for certain medical stuff Yes, like giving sight to the blind! What a monster Musk is! P.S. two of my largest medical fears are becoming paralyzed or going blind. Neuralink has promise in making these treatable. I'm all for it!

> What a monster Musk is!

Glad we’re on the same page.

When I was using Zortech C++ in the ‘80s, I never imagined I’d be talking to the author nearly half a century later about his support for a fascist Nazi near-trillionaire.

Wtf is wrong with you.

Re: Where did all the starships go?

#150

Post by mmooss »

WalterBright wrote: post #123
chasil wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Also, we've realized the scientific reality that traveling faster than light is likely impossible, and the vast distances to other habitable planets would mean tens of thousands of years of travel even with the most efficient technology. Interstellar space is also hostile to life, and any life present at the destination will not use the same DNA coding for protein (if gene expression even works that way). We also do…

And yet we still have a solar system, empty of life other than Earth, we can expand to. Why try to cross an ocean when everything we could want is across the river? Two things baffle me: 1. The idea that Terran life is toxic and must not be allowed on other planets in the solar system. 2. The one person who is advancing our space faring abilities by leaps and bounds is routinely vilified and excoriated on HackerNews.

> The one person who is advancing our space faring abilities by leaps and bounds

The overwhelming amount of the work is done by NASA, ESA, CNSA (China, going to the Moon), and other space agencies. Musk has built orbital rockets.

> routinely vilified and excoriated on HackerNews.

That's disingenuous and you know it. Why make such claims?

Post reply on HN