Order of Kilopi
Yes; but I think that was more focused on opinions and other social aspects, not from the point of view of resources.Originally Posted by Noclevername
To Mutleyeng's point, how much can we really devote to the project if we just need to have basic survival and supply line issues.
My own wild guess would be only as much as we spend on lavish items now.
Order of Kilopi
I think there will be extensive resources devoted to it, but not as much as if there were, say, 10 or 15 years until Doomsday. After the first generation, as people grow up with the knowledge that this thing is coming, I think it'll become something people just live with, like the threat of nuclear war was during the Cold War-- it's only when it becomes visible in the night sky that the real scramble will start, as everyone and his uncle tries to prove that they're necessary for the survival of the offworld program, or just try to bribe or seduce or blackmail or force their way in through means fair, foul, and fouler.
STARGAZING: All I see are the lights of a billion places I'll never go. --Howard Tayler, Schlock Mercenary
Order of Kilopi
I think in 10-15 years we could have something that would allow humanity, just not all of us, to survive assuming that only life on Earth is in danger.
"Depend upon it, sir, when a man knows he is to be hanged in a fortnight, it concentrates his mind wonderfully."
Established Member
Let me throw a wrench into the survival problem. Say we manage to gather the knowledge and resources to save a percentage of humanity, get them away somewhere to watch this thing crash into the Earth. Would that be enough for our survival, really? We do depend a lot on the biosphere, and if we can't save a lot of that as well...would that just mean that we only escaped a quick death, but we'll still die out? How and how much of the Earth environment could we manage to save, to save ourselves?
Order of Kilopi
There's a somewhat related calculation over at the new "What If?" section of xkcd.
Conserve energy. Commute with the Hamiltonian.
Order of Kilopi
Its description of Orion is somewhat misleading. Orion was to have used about 1-10 kiloton yeild nukes.
If something was going to destroy the biosphere, it would probably be best to store DNA for as many species as we can.
Hopefully we would someday be able to one day recreate them.
Last edited by ravens_cry; 2012-Aug-16 at 12:59 AM.
Order of Kilopi
I think that many of us realize that the scenario is totally impossible (especially the first one). But I'm accepting it as a thought experiment.
As above, so below
Order of Kilopi
I think there's an enormous amount of resources that we could throw at the problem. It would be easy to sacrifice some entertainment, but a more likely source is the enormous amount of money we already dedicate to scientific research. We could eliminate all university courses except for those dedicated to this problem, so no more literature or philosophy departments. We are already throwing billions of dollars a year into things like the LHC, for example, which is basic science, so it would be easy enough to redirect that and the scientists. Honestly, I don't think it would really be a problem of resources but one of technical viability in the first place. If it were feasible, then we would simply need a big team on the ground working on the various aspects, and a construction team that would recommission the space shuttles and mobilize all the Russian and Chinese rockets to transport stuff up there. It would be expensive, but we're already launching lots of things anyway.
As above, so below
Moderator
But, Swift only addressed the problems with making the trip.
I have no problem with thought experiments. :)And it's a thought-experiment; First, assume a spherical disaster movie...
I'm just saying that it would be pretty incredible to be able to tell, from 22 light years away, that not only were there animals and plants, but they were edible. The alternative of course is to take our own supply of exploitable species--still, knowing that conditions were amenable.
The problem changes a little if there is no guaranteed haven at the end of the trip.
ETA:
Yeah, that's why I brought it up. Objections were raised about feasibility, and I just thought we'd stepped past that in the OP.
Order of Kilopi
Obviously a message was received from the Galactic Ministry of Survival Games.
"Earthlings, we have an important message for you. We have sent a Mars-sized asteroid your way, and arranged for an alternative planet 22 light years away, supplied with a perfect environment. You have exactly 100 years to impact, and the cameras are ON!"
As above, so below
Established Member
I dont see it like that. For one thing, how much of a role would science have? This is an engineering challenge. Sure you would require scientists to solve some problems along the way, but you would be relying on engineers more than anything. And unfortunately, you will still need to have engineers being trained in just about every aspect of modern life as we do right now - as you would technicians. If you allow the modern infrastructure to collapse, then you will soon lose the ability to do any grand projects. Im not saying you couldnt push a lot of resources at the project, but it has its limits
Order of Kilopi
I thought that was hinted earlier in thread with the discussion of the B-ark (which was supposed to fail, but ironically worked better than expected).
Yes, but even if we knew for sure there was a great planet there, we still couldn't count on the flight being feasible without some pretty radical technological breakthroughs.ETA:
Yeah, that's why I brought it up. Objections were raised about feasibility, and I just thought we'd stepped past that in the OP.
I say there is an invisible elf in my backyard. How do you prove that I am wrong?
The Leif Ericson Cruiser
Moderator
O man, now you've done it.
The show will be called "Who Wants To Be A Survivor?" and the ship will have to be big enough to carry at least three people from every nation on earth. But, it will pay for itself.
Order of Kilopi
And perhaps the horse will learn to sing.
Et tu BAUT? Quantum mutatus ab illo.
Order of Kilopi
Either way, the people involved would be dependent on technology to survive, but the starships would be by far the harder path, requiring more technological breakthroughs.
Start with propulsion: The distance is so great that you would want a very high cruise velocity, far higher than anything we can manage now. And the ship would have to successfully decelerate again when it reaches the destination star. That requirement would dramatically increase the mass of the ship, and a generation ship would necessarily be pretty massive anyway. Also, the propulsion system (whatever it is) would still need to be functional for the deceleration phase. Given the requirements, a ship that could manage 1% of the speed of light would be a serious challenge, so you're talking about a 2200 year flight. Everything needs to work at least that long. The smaller the ecology is, the less room there is for mistakes or accidents. There would also need to be a large enough population in the ship to support a continued technologically sophisticated culture and the technical staff to keep the ship under repair.
Habitats in the solar system wouldn't have the mass constraints of a starship, they wouldn't need advanced propulsion, they could be powered by sunlight, and the ecology wouldn't need to be so tightly closed.
I think it would be more likely that there would be a great deal of shared effort.The habitats would have the disadvantage that every industrialized nation would essentially be able to build their own so there's less incentive for cooperation. There would be a large number of smaller individual projects rather than a single joint one, so groups would constantly be reinventing the wheel.
A starship would need close to 100% efficient recycling unless they took massive reserve supplies, but habitats wouldn't need to be anywhere near that, because there are many worlds that could be used to replenish supplies, and habitats would likely be placed for easy access to water and other important chemicals. Habitats would then not need to have such a tightly closed support system. In the long run, they probably would want to improve closure, but it would be far less critical than for starships. And with far larger populations they not only would be more likely to survive, but could thrive and grow, eventually having a far larger population than Earth (or any single planet) ever could.And ultimately what they're creating are a lot of lifeboats to pile in what's left of the human race on impact day. If our technology isn't good enough to create CLESS that's able to sustain us indefinitely, why are we jumping into lifeboats and floating around in solar system that can not and never will naturally support us, rather than building a ship to get us to dry land when ours sinks?
I say there is an invisible elf in my backyard. How do you prove that I am wrong?
The Leif Ericson Cruiser
Order of Kilopi
This is one scenario where I could see Orion actually being used. I doubt conventional nuclear bombs would be much use for generation starships (the mass ratio would be terrible, and bomblets would need to be functional for the deceleration phase after thousands of years of storage), but if you needed to get a lot of people off the Earth quick, and you didn't care about the environmental effects, giant Orion ships could be a good option. Also, much like the torch ships in some Heinlein stories, and given the thread scenario, I could see them being launched from the middle of the Pacific for decades before strike day.Its description of Orion is somewhat misleading. Orion was to have used about 1-10 kiloton yeild nukes.
If something was going to destroy the biosphere, it would probably be best to store DNA for as many species as we can.
Hopefully we would someday be able to one day recreate them.
I say there is an invisible elf in my backyard. How do you prove that I am wrong?
The Leif Ericson Cruiser
Order of Kilopi
Yes; all those are good. I couldn't think of any word other than lavish at the time. Perhaps superfluous is a better word.
But; I have a feeling that even adding those resources wouldn't add much to the equation.
That does help, but some of that will be offset by the need of training people in the areas that will be required.
Other big ticket items (like LHC) seem to pale in comparison to what we spend on entertainment, advertisement, etc.
Order of Kilopi
Or even what we spend killing each other.
Order of Kilopi
Without getting too political, total world military spending is about $1.74x10^12. Find some way to reduce that significantly, and a lot of money is freed up for science and space exploration.
Order of Kilopi
Part of the problem I have is that I look at things from a relative point of view. Yes, that is a huge amount of money and a good measure when compared to what would have to be done. But; I don't have a clue as to what the project would take.
I see that figure compared to the world economy, and still see a relatively small number.
I'm no economist so I don't know if this is a fair comparison, but that figure is only a bit above 1% of the world GDP.
Order of Kilopi
Or rather, increase that significantly. "We must not allow a space habitat gap!"
Order of Kilopi
That's funny. Unfortunately, it might be true.
For all the optimism we have for the world to get together on a project like this, I fear that if it's not a solution for all people, then each group of people would fight to have thier group represented.
Established Member
I think when you look at the Human condition, thats the more likely way it would go.
The fable of The Scorpion and the Frog springs to mind.
Cooperation, perhaps - world united in one goal? nah
Order of Kilopi
My main point, though, and I think others have expressed this as well, is that you can't solve a problem simply by throwing money (or resources) at it. I really feel that we could dedicate an enormous amount of resources at this problem, but that basically, we can throw whatever we want at it and we aren't going to be able to solve it, because it's basically technically too challenging. First of all, there is basically no way to make a self-contained habitat that can sustain itself for thousands of years, and secondly, even if you can do that, there's no practical way to accelerate it and decelerate it. So it may well be that we could take all the engineers in the world and have them all sit down and work for years and years on how to create a propulsion system that will be adequate and that in the end they will not be able to figure it out, not because of insufficient resources but simply because there isn't a practical solution.
As above, so below
Order of Kilopi
"First of all, there is basically no way to make a self-contained habitat that can sustain itself for thousands of years"
*looks around*
Really now.
Order of Kilopi
Yes, but I said "make". The one we are living was not made. It evolved. It is an enormously complicated system and I seriously doubt that we could recreate it from scratch.
As above, so below
Order of Kilopi
If it can evolve, it can be engineered. I don't doubt it will be complex, but that's not nearly the same thing as impossible.
Evolutionary design is one possible way to assist in finding these solutions.
Order of Kilopi
Sorry if I made it seem like I was saying it's impossible then. I didn't, and I don't think so. I just think it's too difficult technically for us to manage it so quickly even if we throw lots of resources at it. I think it will be complex, as you do. I think it's just a question of our judgment on how complex it will be.
As above, so below
Established Member
Is anybody, now-a-days, thinking about, mulling over, designs of self contained space faring habitat? Maybe sombody should be.
Order of Kilopi
There has been many proposals. An O'Neill cylinder is a famous one.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote