We Won't Have Enough Power For Interstellar Travel Until At Least 2211
176 replies, posted
[QUOTE=Swebonny;27295616]You might want to add a "^" between 10 and 18 in that article. 1018 joule is like half a Big Mac.[/QUOTE]
That was the article's error, not mine. But I fixed it.
You know there is still the chance of becoming a volunteer as a test subject for cryogenics. That is if its even being studied/tested/etc right now.
[QUOTE=Superwafflez;27295182]Moores law is pretty much obsolete and dead.[/QUOTE]
uh no it's not. Apple is evidence enough that moore's law is quite alive.
[QUOTE=Datsun;27295642]You know there is still the chance of becoming a volunteer as a test subject for cryogenics. That is if its even being studied/tested/etc right now.[/QUOTE]
I'd rather live my life out to its fullest and die a death where I know I'm dying correctly than die at the age of 30, asleep in cold ice without a single conscious thought and dreams of the future.
[QUOTE=Datsun;27295642]You know there is still the chance of becoming a volunteer as a test subject for cryogenics. That is if its even being studied/tested/etc right now.[/QUOTE]
Yes when applied to humans and animals it's called cryonics. I remember an article I read in a Swedish magazine about people that froze their heads or their whole body in wait to get revived sometime in the future. Not sure if it was these companies though.
[url]http://www.cryonics.org/[/url]
[url]http://www.alcor.org/[/url]
Costs quite a lot.
[QUOTE=SergeantDead;27295687]"We will never need more than 5 gigabytes of storage, ever." -Bill Gates, 1995[/QUOTE]
Did he really say that?
[QUOTE=Esteam;27295370]We've been to the moon once.
We've been to the bottom of the sea countless times.[/QUOTE]
LOL. We've been to the moon about 6 times? 12 people have been to the moon. We've been to the bottom of the deepest parts of our oceans twice, with 3 people.
Disagree? How? There's been 2 trips to the bottom of the marianas trench. We've had 12 people on the moon, 2 at a time, that makes 6 trips.
[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;27295829]LOL. We've been to the moon about 6 times? 12 people have been to the moon. We've been to the bottom of the deepest parts of our oceans twice, with 3 people.[/QUOTE]
The deepest parts of our oceans? Got a source on this?
Apart from bullshit predictions, I remember thinking how the fuck anyone could need 1tb harddrives several years ago.
Now my steam folder alone is over 400gb.
[QUOTE=Noth;27295958]The deepest parts of our oceans? Got a source on this?[/QUOTE]
Mariana trench explorations?
[quote]The Swiss-designed, Italian-built, United States Navy bathyscaphe Trieste reached the bottom at 1:06 p.m. on January 23, 1960, with U.S. Navy Lieutenant Don Walsh and Jacques Piccard on board.[2] Iron shot was used for ballast, with gasoline for buoyancy.[2] The onboard systems indicated a depth of 11,521 m (37,799 ft), but this was later revised to 10,916 m (35,814 ft).[9] At the bottom, Walsh and Piccard were surprised to discover sole or flounder about 30 cm (1 ft) long,[9] as well as a shrimp.[1] According to Piccard, "The bottom appeared light and clear, a waste of firm diatomaceous ooze".[9]
Only three descents have ever been achieved. The first was the manned descent by Trieste in 1960. This was followed by the unmanned ROVs Kaikō in 1996 and Nereus in 2009. These three expeditions directly measured very similar depths of 10,902 to 10,916 m.[/quote]
[url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mariana_Trench[/url]
[QUOTE=Noth;27295958]The deepest parts of our oceans? Got a source on this?[/QUOTE]
Do you have any idea how much pressure there is at the bottom of our oceans?
It's way more of an engineering nightmare to do anything down there than going to the moon.
[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;27295331]67% of the earth is water, some of that is so deep that we have no idea what can be going on down there. More people have been to the moon than to the bottom of our own planet.
The fuck is this "no exploration" left attitude? We have so much our own planet can still tell us. We're ignorant to not look there.[/QUOTE]
But I'm a bad swimmer.
[QUOTE=chipset;27296008]Do you have any idea how much pressure there is at the bottom of our oceans?
It's way more of an engineering nightmare to do anything down there than going to the moon.[/QUOTE]
It's not even possible for people to descend below 300 feet right now, not without complicated suits or diving apparatuses, it's not even easy to descend below 200 feet for anyone yet.
[QUOTE=SergeantDead;27295777]something like that[/QUOTE]
I think he was talking about ram.
BRB orion project.
What a shitty and inaccurate prediction, and what a horrible method of determination.
A.) This could be a massive underestimate.
B.) Even though we wouldn't be alive, it's close enough for our descendants to take part, and that's good enough for me.
C.) Age-reversal tech is quite fast, we may live to see that.
D.) At-least it's only 200 years. It could be 10,000. We can do stuff now to effect the future which is promising.
I'm a futurist, I don't really care if I'm alive to see it, as long as it can happen.
[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;27296042]It's not even possible for people to descend below 300 feet right now, not without complicated suits or diving apparatuses, it's not even easy to descend below 200 feet for anyone yet.[/QUOTE]
I actually think it would be easier to explore the space (compared to our ocean) if only our gravity didn't exist :v:
Better get started now, then
[QUOTE=chipset;27295987]Apart from bullshit predictions, I remember thinking how the fuck anyone could need 1tb harddrives several years ago.
Now my steam folder alone is over 400gb.[/QUOTE]
Computer and space technology are not proportionate to one another. As computer technology gets easier and easier to produce, space (travel) technology gets harder and harder to produce as it requires more advanced technology, more energy and more material, up until the hump where standard interstellar equipment has been done for so long that it's just that; standard. 2200 sounds about right.
It sounds like he is creating a prediction based on the curve of energy trends and technological development. Interstellar travel is a huge feat, and even 200 years is a pretty short time for something like that. Still, though, I hope somebody closely evaluates his work, people always overshoot or undershoot these sort of odds. 500 people per ship is pretty ridiculous too. I thought these things would be like 20 people tops.
Didn't NASA get a budget cut or something?
[QUOTE=DanRatherman;27296089]
C.) Age-reversal tech is quite fast, we may live to see that.
[/QUOTE]
This. There was already that article a while ago about the age reversal in mice. I don't think it would be too long up until aging can be stopped all together in mammals.
The complication with space travel is energy, as hypno pointed out. It'll take a long time for us to figure out good energy sources to do this with, hell, we can't even power a car very well, how can we manage huge space distances?
I love how 90% of people in this thread ignore the evidence.
It's amazing how many astrophiles we have here.
[QUOTE=johan_sm;27296156]Didn't NASA get a budget cut or something?[/QUOTE]
Not the only space exploration department on Earth, and a cut that will likely last 20 years tops won't stop progress much.
Remember, we're dealing with 4 generations of people dying before this is proven or disproven. You cant base much of this on one lifetimes trifling events.
[QUOTE=hypno-toad;27296183]This. There was already that article a while ago about the age reversal in mice. I don't think it would be too long up until aging can be stopped all together in mammals.[/QUOTE]
If we can stop aging, alzheimers will be stopped too.
[editline]9th January 2011[/editline]
[QUOTE=DanRatherman;27296353]Not the only space exploration department on Earth, and a cut that will likely last 20 years tops won't stop progress much.
Remember, we're dealing with 4 generations of people dying before this is proven or disproven. You cant base much of this on one lifetimes trifling events.[/QUOTE]
Russia will colonize space.
[QUOTE=Explosions;27296309]I love how 90% of people in this thread ignore the evidence.
It's amazing how many astrophiles we have here.[/QUOTE]
Thats sort of the issue, there's a lot of supposed calculations but none of it is posted. Sound like his varied from far less optimistic calculations so it'd be sort of nice to see some variables.
Either way, interstellar travel is a bit of a fruitless journey considering everything is so fucking far away, just balling mass ideas here but it seems like it'd be a lot more worthwhile trying to terraform mars and venus before trying to send a 500 person ship way out to alpha centauri. Not that my speculation makes a difference :buddy: Theres also that space elevator concept that could be feasible in the near future.
[QUOTE=JohnnyMo1;27294637]At least until we find the mass relays.[/QUOTE]
aw
i wanted to make a mass effect reference.
But what about the Mass Relays we discover in 2100~? Oh well, I'll never live to see space travel anyway. :smith:
[QUOTE=Explosions;27296309]I love how 90% of people in this thread ignore the evidence.
It's amazing how many astrophiles we have here.[/QUOTE]
Well hello mister negativity.
[editline]9th January 2011[/editline]
[QUOTE=Big Ben;27296550]But what about the Mass Relays we discover in 2100~? Oh well, I'll never live to see space travel anyway. :smith:[/QUOTE]
you never know, massive breakthroughs in the Life extension field could be just around the corner.
[QUOTE=SergeantDead;27295687]"We will never need more than 5 gigabytes of storage, ever." -Bill Gates, 1995[/QUOTE]
Original quote was "640K ought to be enough for anybody.", which he never said either.
[quote=BBN]QUESTION: I read in a newspaper that in 1981 you said, ``640K of memory should
be enough for anybody.'' What did you mean when you said this?
ANSWER: I've said some stupid things and some wrong things, but not that. No
one involved in computers would ever say that a certain amount of memory is
enough for all time.
[...]
Meanwhile, I keep bumping into that silly quotation attributed to me that says
640K of memory is enough. There's never a citation; the quotation just floats
like a rumor, repeated again and again.
[url]http://groups.google.com/group/alt.folklore.computers/msg/99ce4b0555bf35f4[/url][/quote]
Only 1019 Joules to slow the ship down again?
Thank god! I thought it was going to be some ridiculously high number like... oh... I dunno, say, 10^19 Joules.
actually, 200 years doesn't seem that unreasonable. it'll be a while before we even have manned interplanetary travel. traveling to another star is a gigantic fucking hurdle compared to another planet.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.