A corpse's guide to the Universe

why? Why? WHY?

Simple...

  1. Most people sit about all day moaning they need something in their life.
  2. BECAUSE IT'S OUT THERE....waiting for us...space...
  3. Well I hate Eastenders and Home & away, so the further I can get away from them .....
  4. Because when I was a child I read stories of Neil Armstrong et al and remember watching the first shuttle go up... and that was such a long time ago AND NOTHING'S BEEN DONE SINCE!
  5. Mr Spock was my hero! But now I'm as bald as Capt Jean-Luc!!!
  6. "Time is always against us"...Morpheus {Matrix}.
Griff...That's why...:)
 
Baby steps. We first have to figure out how to get an unmanned probe to other star systems. That's the only way to figure out if there's anything worth visiting in those neighborhoods. Then there is terraforming that may need to be done. These things will take time. They will be multi-generational projects.
 
Also we have now known so much about human psychology than ever before in man's history, and yet some people have to search Buddhism and to find the purpose of life in Buddhism, when psychology should have told him all about the purpose of life and how to achieve it.

But...but...L. Ron says that psychology is steer-dung!!

Who do I believe?!?

:(
 
Simple...

  1. Most people sit about all day moaning they need something in their life.
  2. BECAUSE IT'S OUT THERE....waiting for us...space...
  3. Well I hate Eastenders and Home & away, so the further I can get away from them .....
  4. Because when I was a child I read stories of Neil Armstrong et al and remember watching the first shuttle go up... and that was such a long time ago AND NOTHING'S BEEN DONE SINCE!
  5. Mr Spock was my hero! But now I'm as bald as Capt Jean-Luc!!!
  6. "Time is always against us"...Morpheus {Matrix}.
Griff...That's why...:)

None of which is any reason for us to "get our skates on". At the moment we can't even manage interplanetary travel reliably, and it will be quite a while before we send people any further than the Moon, if that. Interstellar travel is just not possible with current technology, and there is no reason at all to attempt it when there is so much of our Solar System to explore first.
 
Personally, I think we'd have to perfect some form of a suspended animation system for any such plan to be feasible. Barring the possibility (very remote, in my opinion) of some sort of faster-than-light travel, this would seem to me to be just about the only viable option. If this were not the case, and you were actually seeking to colonize a new planet, you'd be looking at a craft capable of supporting hundreds/thousands of people over hundreds/thousands of years.

Unfortunately, the contract is likely to go to the lowest bidder.

Or, there's always option two...wait for the Great Zenob from [insert planet's name here] to offer us a free ride on his spaceship.

Good plan, unless Zenob employs the same strategy.
 
Right you are Cuddles. We can't get to Mars reliably without loss of equipment, how can we get to another solar system?
 
Sending humans to other star systems is not feasible with current technology. So to imagine it you have to assume some kinds of technical advances.

Assuming "warp drive" remains an impossibility (and I think there is no evidence suggesting it will ever be possible) we must consider other possibilities. For example, sending robots along with a large supply of human sperms and eggs, which would only be turned into humans if the robots could first successfully establish a colony base and all the facilities and resources to raise them. But there was a time when sending a man to the moon seemed impossible, so it wouldn't surprise me if the technology is eventually invented to get us to other stars somehow, even if it takes a long time.

Why bother sending sperm and eggs? Just pile some corpses into a ship and have it crash onto a planet thus polluting it with our DNA. Give it a few million years and life will develop. Civilizations will arise. There will one day be lemon-soaked paper napkins.

But you know, I thought the whole purpose would be to gain knowledge and explore, and what good is knowledge and exploration if you're dead and gone by the time you get it? What good would babies raised by robots do if they never knew the Earth?
 
I don't think we should even bother considering sending humans to other stars. Colonizing our solar system is within the realm of possibility, eventually, but shipping people off on interstellar voyages is never going to happen.

And the reason is simple: meat is an extremely inefficient package in which to ship a person. By the time we have the technology to make an interstellar journey in a practical amount of time (a non-trivial task to say the least), we'll also have the technology to house consciousness in something a lot better than a blob of squishy neurons supported by a couple hundred pounds of haphazard plumbing.

If we absolutely must have human bodies, they'll be grown from scratch on the other end.
 
If there turns out to be some way of "storing" human minds in electronic form, or of convincing a computer it is conscious (two facets of the same thing), we may go starfaring as machines which largely go dormant on the long interstellar runs and wake up on system entry.
Cherryh's "Voyager in Night" describes such an entity. Not her easiest novel for the reader.
Whether the man/machine convergence is pure fantasy, time will tell, but the notion of shooting two meter tubes of water and goop across the galaxy makes little sense any way we look at it. There's science and there's SF. Let's not confuse them.

Looks like Todd beat me to it. Telepathy.
 
Why bother sending sperm and eggs? Just pile some corpses into a ship and have it crash onto a planet thus polluting it with our DNA. Give it a few million years and life will develop. Civilizations will arise. There will one day be lemon-soaked paper napkins.

Bacteria has much better DNA, and can survive in much more hostile conditions. Also, it's much smaller.
 
One aspect of my original thought was - If we want to leave this star for another, because it's old, then by the time we get around to it, all the others will be older to...
I don't know if a feasibility study has ever been done...some of the nearest stars are too red, too big or triplicates (enhancing the dreaded radiation factor) and so not good places to visit. But then the idea I think most people aspire to is to become travellers in space...self sufficient?
I don't think 'sails' are an option, as anything so flimsy must get damaged.
Griff...

The technology is not that far fetched even without faster than light BS. If you could maintain about 1 G acceleration you could cross our entire galaxy (100k light years) in around 20 years. Yes much more than 100k years would pass back on earth during your voyage. Time dilation gives us all the suspended animation effects we need. Note that if you traveled 10,000 light years in 20 years the destination would be well more than 10,000 years older than what you observed it to be when you left. The speed of light limitation is only an issue for those waiting for you back home, not the voyagers. Of course this would depend on maintaining a hefty acceleration indefinitely. Even a modest acceleration if maintained can get a ship to nearby stars in a proper lifetime. Any race that survives for truly long periods of galactic time will not be dependent on any particular world anyway. This Earth will not support life forever even without our influence.

I've considered using a sandblaster type setup using metallic powder passed through a Langmuir torch for repair type jobs. It would work a little like the constructors on the computer game Total Annihilation. It should be tunable for various kinds of powdered media.

Starthinker said;
What good would babies raised by robots do if they never knew the Earth?
How many past human civilizations would say that about todays world? How many nationalities would say that about their own nation? How many races would say that about their own race or culture? Isn't this the same bias that inspires the southern redneck hick jokes? In Earths absents it will become a legend. In its' presents those earth bound folks will be the hicks.
 
Space exploration? I'd be happier if we finished properly exploring/understanding this planet first.
 
Just pull a 180 and keep on doing the same thing. :)


The problem I have is that we have no way of actually containing a nuclear blast. Steel or aluminum just won't cut it. The whole idea won't get off the theoretical drawing board until there is some manner of containing and directing the explosions.

You know, it's a little depressing reading this thread. I know that at the moment our understanding of physics precludes us travelling to another star system, but I really, really hope that one day we develop some form of faster than light travel.

Cheers,
TGHO
 
Sending humans to other star systems is not feasible with current technology. So to imagine it you have to assume some kinds of technical advances.

Nonsense!

From the surface of the earth to a low earth orbit to a solar escape orbit is 17 kilometers per second delta-V.

Assuming a top of the line hydrogen/oxygen rocket with a specific impulse of 4,500 m/s exhaust velocity, the Tsiolkovsky rocket equation tells us we require a fuel fraction somewhat in excess of 99.99% to fling ye spacefaring gent where no man has ever gone before. Since staging can give us effectively arbitrary fuel fractions, this is quite doable.

Now, as for keeping the poor bloke alive, well, you ever did mandate life support.

The problem I have is that we have no way of actually containing a nuclear blast. Steel or aluminum just won't cut it. The whole idea won't get off the theoretical drawing board until there is some manner of containing and directing the explosions.

Diamonds or graphite. There is no fluid medium with which to transmit a blast wave, so all the pusher plate need to be able to do is survive the incident radiation and impulse of incident vaporized bomb debris. A little active cooling, a little ablation, and you're good. Since all that vaporized junk just did smack into you, you go the other direction (conservation of momentum and all that).

Easy.

Ish.

Now, if you want a little bit more specific impulse, you use a big (several kilometers big) fullerene parachute and detonate the bomb in between you and the canopy. The net force will be away from the open end of the parachute, and you will harvest a higher percentage of the blast energy. Moreover, you're using a tension structure, which should have less mass.
 
Last edited:
The problem I have is that we have no way of actually containing a nuclear blast. Steel or aluminum just won't cut it. The whole idea won't get off the theoretical drawing board until there is some manner of containing and directing the explosions.

The present things on the drawing board include magnetic nozzles and sending tiny nuclear bombs well behind the ship before detonating them. The second setup would use a parabolic shield to for both protection and trapping as much of the blast as possible. Ion drive have very tiny accelerations but applied continuously even they could get us there.

Yes we could go to the nearest stars well within a single lifetime on todays technology if the priority was high enough. There's no reason to set the priority that high yet but the present efforts are definitely warranted.
 

Back
Top Bottom