Live data from Hacker News

Why we are unlikely to ever leave the solar system.

antipope.org

181–187 of 187 posts

Re: Why we are unlikely to ever leave the solar system.

#181

Earlier quoted context omitted.

looks like you didn't get it that the drive i linked to is supposed to use the same principle of space expansion and contraction.

Galaxies are not spaceships. Just because the natural expansion of the universe affects galaxies (and everything else) doesn't mean it's possible to artificially expand and contract the universe.

just because God strikes heretics with lightning doesn't mean that it is possible to artificially create and route electrical current

Re: Why we are unlikely to ever leave the solar system.

#183

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Galaxies are not spaceships. Just because the natural expansion of the universe affects galaxies (and everything else) doesn't mean it's possible to artificially expand and contract the universe.

just because God strikes heretics with lightning doesn't mean that it is possible to artificially create and route electrical current

The fact that cats hunt mice doesn't mean we can't have megapixel cameras.

Re: Why we are unlikely to ever leave the solar system.

#184
post #68

This one is gold: "As Bruce Sterling has put it: "I'll believe in people settling Mars at about the same time I see people settling the Gobi Desert. The Gobi Desert is about a thousand times as hospitable as Mars and five hundred times cheaper and easier to reach. Nobody ever writes "Gobi Desert Opera" because, well, it's just kind of plonkingly obvious that there's no good reason to go there and live."

The significant difference is that we have colonized this planet already. It's in the nature of our species to increase our reach and breadth, and settling in the Gobi Desert simply doesn't pander towards this call. The perspective put forward by Sterling is very naive and narrow-minded, as it entirely disregards this human trait. Remember, we went to the moon, and we want to go to Mars, too, for reasons that we all…

> It's in the nature of our species to increase our reach and breadth,

It is? Maybe it's in the nature of some individuals, but three boats ain't no rocketship.

Re: Why we are unlikely to ever leave the solar system.

#185

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think a more realistic scenario, at least in the short/medium term (for relative values of "short" and "medium"), will be to limit human population to a sustainable level. It will be ugly, but I think in a few generations' time we'll see it happening, either by explicit means or evolutionary. I'm thinking pandemics brought on by overpopulation, and the evolution of diseases, not our evolution, although that too may…

I believe the UN's population models predict the world population will peak at ~9B in around 2050 and then fall. Most developed countries already have negative population growth (from birth rate below replacement levels, ignoring immigration).

That I didn't realize; thanks. Time to go do some more reading!

Re: Why we are unlikely to ever leave the solar system.

#186
post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Black holes spaceships are the ticket with our current understanding of physics. They can carry a large and heavy cargo in ship form or can push small planets slowly in a desired direction. The travel times for black hole ships are reasonable too, about six years to Proxima Centauri. It beats the other sci-fi concepts like fusion, Orion, anti matter and solar sails. Funny how solar sails seem like the easier option t…

If we can't travel faster than the speed of light (a reasonably safe assumption), maybe we can take intergalactic shortcuts like black holes. So it seems to me that Battlestar Galactica-style "jump" drives (or Borg transwarp conduits) are more likely than Star Trek-style warp drives.

By black holes do you mean wormholes?

Re: Why we are unlikely to ever leave the solar system.

#187

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That would not preserve our species, should planet Earth become inhabitable.

Right, that's the whole point. It's not an economic venture, it's a backup plan.

There is no economic value in funding this backup plan by the private sector (which is defined by profits). Its not like they will "own" the new colony - unless, of course, if they actually do. I.e., if the corps are allowed to use those colonists raised as slaves for the corp's gains, then there would be economic value and hence, the private sector will attempt to do this.

Though i doubt that is ever going to pass, so the only alternative for this "backup" plan is gov't funded expeditions.

Post reply on HN