Will children born in 2012 likely see the first starship in their lifetimes? I am asuming that civilization doesn't crater and they humanity survives. Does anyone think there might be a break-through in our lifetimes?
Established Member
Will children born in 2012 likely see the first starship in their lifetimes? I am asuming that civilization doesn't crater and they humanity survives. Does anyone think there might be a break-through in our lifetimes?
Administrator
I think so, but not because I expect a breakthrough in space technology or the ability to apply resources to something that won't pay off for a century or more any time soon, but rather because I expect breakthroughs in life-extension medical technology.
Forming opinions as we speak
Established Member
If you mean humans leaving our solar system I doubt it.
If you mean a probe to another star system, maybe.
I was born in 1957 and we haven't gone beyond the Moon. So another 70 years won't take us much farther.
Established Member
1903 Wright BrothersOriginally Posted by samkent
1969 moon landing
2005 Titan- Huygens landing
all kinds of significant events that I didn't list
2012-2100 ?
I guess it all depends on how many resources we throw into it and what we as a species can afford.
Order of Kilopi
No. You do know how far away the nearest stars are, don't you?
Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts.
Established Member
No. WAY beyond the technology of the next century, unless someone drops by and gives us a set of plans...
Established Member
I think even if we had the plans we wouldn't have the ability to manufacture the components. That's assuming that a starship is enormously complex, of course.
Established Member
They're more likely to see the last space launch.
Order of Kilopi
BBP didn't say they'd live to see the arrival of the ship. Nor even the launch. Just the ship.
Having said that...
Assuming they live the same lifespans as us, I still don't see it happening within that time.
STARGAZING: All I see are the lights of a billion places I'll never go. --Howard Tayler, Schlock Mercenary
Established Member
yes-
and the question is Will children born in 2012 like see the first starship? As was pointed out- how long will the lifespan of someone born in 2012 be?
Established Member
Remember the Prometheus!!! In science fiction only....
Order of Kilopi
I never liked equating spaceflight to airflight. The situations are completely different.
Airflight never took the resources of governments to develop it. Spaceflight always did.
Airflight was inspired by the animal kingdom. It gave a lot of clues and inspiration of how it's done. Spaceflight only had the inspiration.
Wright brothers to the first jet airliner took about 50 years. 60 years later we are not much past that point. Even the airline industry has been stalled for some time now. I see the same situation with spaceflight. We seem to have hit a physics/technological barrier that is on another plateau of effort. Basicall; in spaceflight, we did our SST with BEO space travel. Maintaining or exceeding that level is difficult.
That is for sure.
Have you been following the Sending a manned mission to Gliese thread? It has a lot of good discussion of what the issues are, some of the hopes and dreams of some of our members, and what it would take as a species.
It doesn't paint such an optimistic view in my mind, and that's with the added incentive of saving humanity.
Established Member
For perspective as to how many resources we'd have to throw at it:
According to NASA to get a spaceship the size of a spaceshuttle to the nearest star, using current technology and allowing for 900 years travel time, would require more fuel then there is matter in the observable universe.
http://www.nasa.gov/centers/glenn/te...rp/scales.html
So for a functional starship we'd need propulsion technology that's billions of times more efficient than what we have, and though i won't say it's impossible i will say it'll probably take more than a century to develop.
Last edited by noncryptic; 2012-Aug-20 at 07:19 PM.
Established Member
What starship? Manned? No snowball chance in hell.
Unmanned? Probably.
Established Member
I predict that in 100yrs from now, someone will be asking the same question.
Thats not being pessimistic. I just dont think i can see a viable reason for doing it. What star do you want to get to, and why?
There are a lot of things which might be done within someones lifetime, but there will be solid scientific reasons for doing it.
An example would be possibly sending a probe to the focal point of the sun to examine the center of the galaxy. I dont know if it is possible, but it might be, and there would be good reason for doing it.
Order of Kilopi
The first interstellar probe, maybe, but probably not the first starship, in a standard lifetime.
Et tu BAUT? Quantum mutatus ab illo.
Order of Kilopi
Au contraire. A lot of innovation beyond the initial invention was requested by, paid for and used by the government. Airlines and airports even more so.
cephalopodsAirflight was inspired by the animal kingdom. It gave a lot of clues and inspiration of how it's done. Spaceflight only had the inspiration.
On the contrary, we have the tech, we just don't want to make the changes and spend the money necessary to develop/use them.Wright brothers to the first jet airliner took about 50 years. 60 years later we are not much past that point. Even the airline industry has been stalled for some time now. I see the same situation with spaceflight. We seem to have hit a physics/technological barrier that is on another plateau of effort. Basicall; in spaceflight, we did our SST with BEO space travel. Maintaining or exceeding that level is difficult.
Et tu BAUT? Quantum mutatus ab illo.
Moderator & Sausage Gawd
I heard or read a tidbit some time back, to the effect that the first person to live to the age of 150 has already been born. I wish I could remember the source...
Still not long enough I think for a within-a-lifetime trip in a starship based on technology conservatively foreseeable within the next 100 years. Technology would still be a problem within that timeframe for a generational ship.
─────────────────────────────────────────────
My moderation comments will appear in this color.
To report a post (even this one) to the moderation team, click the reporting icon in the lower-left corner of the post:
─────────────────────────────────────────────
◄ Rules For Posting To This Board ► ◄ Forum FAQs ► ◄ Conspiracy Theory Advice ► ◄ Alternate Theory Advice ►
Established Member
Personally I think not, but it shouldn't be too much further than that.Will children born in 2012 likely see the first starship?
When I was born we had not landed on the moon, there were only 2 tv channels in the uk and the internet wasn't even dreamt of.
Now look at the state of technology.
We can send data down wires and recreate objects at the other end, we can land robots auto-magically on other planets within minute percentages of their targets, and computers can do the hard grunt work of the mathematics within seconds if not minutes.
All we need IMHO is the inspiration and the spark that opens the door. I can't say what that spark may be, but I'm sure that the search for the roots of gravity and mass will make things more accessible than we currently believe. The speed of light is not such that we can't circumvent its implications. Quantum physics has demonstrated that, Ok we can't send information faster than light speed, but that presumes we're doing it right. A change of technique, a physical revelation or revolution and it may become common place.
Sure you can shoot me down now, but that's what was said about most technology.
How many computers will the world need ?
There is nothing religious in what I'm suggesting but nature seems to favour organisation. It naturally leads to it and it's not important how long that organisation lasts. If it exists at all it tends to evolve to make sure it continues. So I think that we are destined to go to the stars, or they will come to us. Not terribly scientific, but what is science without question and unexpected answer ?
It disappoints me when allegedly scientific minds say "it can't be done". mainly because time and time again "we can't" turns into "oh well if you do it like that then of course we can".
Either way, I won't see it happen, but I won't be a nay-sayer.
Order of Kilopi
I find it doubtful, yet I remain hopeful. I certainly hope to see a mission to Mars before I die as well as a permanently manned base on the moon, like in Antarctica.
Order of Kilopi
My thought is that there are 100 places in the solar system that are worth visiting, therefore we won't leave our system until that is done. How long that takes is up in the air. A hundred years? Doubtful. A 1000 years is ten years per location assuming they are done one at a time.
If you actually had this many ships zipping around the solar system for that long, it would only be a matter of time until someone makes a gesture by decommissioning a ship by pointing it at a "nearby" star. The flight time might be centuries or more and failure would be the only option being unmanned and wrongly re-purposed ship. The telemetry might be good for something.
Solfe
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
'That was tops! Who's not good at math? I was all, "Four!"' - Finn, Adventure Time.
Established Member
I think this will be the most likely scenario.
Order of Kilopi
Oh God, I hope not. To give up the universe, to give up all the majesty and wonder of the cosmos, that sounds absolutely terrible.
Order of Kilopi
Yes, innovation, assistance, and all sorts of stuff. But; the early days of air flight were mainly entepreneurial.
Ok; they squirt. My point was that with airflight you had both the nature example in the same environment and using similar methods as your goal.
That was my point. There are plateaus which require more tech and more money. If you think about my statement, we have the tech for supersonic and hypersonic, but those are incrementally much harder and more expensive. Just like LEO -> BEO -> Interstellar.
Edit: Let me add another difference;
Air flight had destinations that were fully developed (or at least habitable), spaceflight needs the destinations developed before it becomes a desired (popular) destination.
Member
Perhaps this is a bit of an economics sidetrack, but I find it hard to get my head around the "X is too expensive" argument. Money is a totally artificial construct. We have as much of it as we care to create. And the planet is a closed system - spending money on building spaceships doesn't mean we have less money - after all, that money is paying engineers, construction workers and so on, right the way back to miners who are extracting the raw materials. Those people spend their wages on other goods and the money stays in the economy.
Of course, you have to look at it as what we as a planet can afford, not what (say) the United States can afford, if it has to pay X billion dollars in debt to China, which has... and so on and so on.
I suppose you could argue "can we afford to devote such a large number of skilled people to one task", but that's a different argument. And it's not as if even well-educated people aren't short of employment.
Never mind the wonders of the universe, economics will always be a source of mystery and wonder to me!
Order of Kilopi
That is true, but the resources that the money goes toward has some value. Instead of those resources being used to help us survive or make us better, they are being drastically sidetracked to a long term scientific venture. A noble goal in itself, but it's resources that could go to food, health, etc.
So; While money is an artifical construct, it is a tool that can measure the resources that are being redirected.
While the money is still rolling off into the economy, the physical resources are being bled into the endeavor.
Order of Kilopi
We can't "circumvent its implications"? What in the world does that mean? Are you saying that you believe we can travel faster than light?
As above, so below
Order of Kilopi
I doubt they'll even see a man or woman on Mars. So they won't see a starship, unless you count Pioneer 9 & 10 [ETA - should be 10 & 11, as Van Rijn pointed out] and Voyager 1 & 2.
I broadly agree. There's just no useful analogy for interstellar flight.
Last edited by Paul Beardsley; 2012-Aug-23 at 08:11 PM. Reason: Noting an error.
Order of Kilopi
I think that's a bit of a misunderstanding. It's true that we can create as much money as we want, but if you print money the supply will increase while the demand will stay the same, so the value will drop. Money has an artificial aspect, but it isn't completely artificial, because it's based on how much we can produce, partly the "devotion of skilled people," but also things like technology, which itself has been created by skilled people. Investing in one area does remove investment from another area. Add it's true as you say that there is unemployment, so the economy could be more efficient than it is, but that doesn't mean we can devote unlimited resources to anything.
As above, so below
Order of Kilopi
And it also depends on how technically challenging it is. There are things that can't be done no matter how many resources you throw at them. Nuclear fusion and quantum computing are two things I can think of that are theoretically possible (in the case of fusion, the sun does it all the time), but which have proven to be very technically difficult, despite lots of resources being thrown at them.
As above, so below
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote