Space Opera vs Hard Sci-Fi, personal vs realistic

[JCurwen3]

Originally Posted by Flyndaran

That's really odd. As I only care about propagating the species into space, BECAUSE nobody I know would benefit. In a thousand years, I doubt anything of my present cultural background would exist. The only thing in common, maybe, is that they will be my species.

With "world arc" ships, even you might benefit. And we all assume aging will be with us forever, but I doubt even with limited investments in the necessary bio- and nano- tech, that lifespans can't be doubled in decades, and then doubled again, doubled again, until we reach lifespan escape velocity. Who knows what may be possible? I can see the desire to perpetuate the species, but only through the very possibly overly pessimistic lenses that perceive inevitable person decline and death as inescapable. And I don't subscribe to that idea.

[vierasmarius]

Originally Posted by JCurwen3

What did we really get out of the manned mission to the Moon, in the end, or expect to get out of it? Not much. Yet we did it, at a time when technologically it was a huge stretch and probably a bad idea. Mostly to show a rival nation that we "beat them to it".

While I largely agree with your point, I think we can trace many benefits back to the manned space missions of the 70s. They spurred some technological development, which bore fruit in the private sector. But even more than that, they spurred imagination, birthing a whole generation of children with renewed interest in scientific exploration. There's not any absolute price tag you can place on that, of course, but I'd argue that it was worth the cost.

And yes, I have been influenced in my opinion on this by the astrophysicist Neil deGrasse Tyson. I don't know that the same argument could be applied to interstellar exploration, but at least it's a debate we can have.

[Flyndaran]

Originally Posted by JCurwen3

With "world arc" ships, even you might benefit. And we all assume aging will be with us forever, but I doubt even with limited investments in the necessary bio- and nano- tech, that lifespans can't be doubled in decades, and then doubled again, doubled again, until we reach lifespan escape velocity. Who knows what may be possible? I can see the desire to perpetuate the species, but only through the very possibly overly pessimistic lenses that perceive inevitable person decline and death as inescapable. And I don't subscribe to that idea.

Giant space traveling genetically stable over long term biodomes? I like the concept, but they are less plausible than FTL in my book.
They would have to be many miles across, run as iron-fisted dictatorships, powered by ass-loads of antimatter, and still take tens of thousands of years at least to get to nearby stars.
Nice for space opera or fantasy sci fi, but not for realistic science fiction.

[JCurwen3]

Originally Posted by vierasmarius

While I largely agree with your point, I think we can trace many benefits back to the manned space missions of the 70s. They spurred some technological development, which bore fruit in the private sector. But even more than that, they spurred imagination, birthing a whole generation of children with renewed interest in scientific exploration. There's not any absolute price tag you can place on that, of course, but I'd argue that it was worth the cost.

And yes, I have been influenced in my opinion on this by the astrophysicist Neil deGrasse Tyson. I don't know that the same argument could be applied to interstellar exploration, but at least it's a debate we can have.

In fact I don't disagree with anything you've said. Those are real values and to me they also made the manned missions worth the cost. I was just playing devil's (or in this case, politician's... same difference) advocate.

For politicians, and sadly probably a vast majority of the population, those arguments in favour of such missions will have been seen and still be seen as "not much". It's my opinion that such arguments about the benefits apply also to their interstellar analogues, although sadly those arguments will similarly fall on deaf ears.

Given our current economic situation, most people would laugh at even another mission to the Moon let alone Mars (interstellar isn't even pie in the sky), so it keeps getting scrapped or pushed back, because "how we can justify the cost?", even if, for all we know, solving the engineering challenges involved in such a mission might lead to breakthrough technologies that could reinvigorate our economies, solve global environmental problems, and / or bring together the nations of Earth via a common shared vision and enthusiasm. But none of that is "certain", or "concrete", and most people will just short-sightedly ridicule such arguments as idealism. I think that's stupid, but people are stupid, malicious cowards at their best. Individual persons mostly aren't, mind you, but people as a whole, and in direct proportion to the size of the groups individuals find themselves in, are desperately horrible and short-sighted.

[vierasmarius]

Originally Posted by Flyndaran

Giant space traveling genetically stable over long term biodomes? I like the concept, but they are less plausible than FTL in my book.

Less plausible than FTL? World Arc ships are an engineering problem, not a physics one. Notably, they don't require exotic matter, Type III civilization energies, or completely new laws of physics. I agree that they're unlikely, but please, let's not exaggerate their difficulty.

They would have to be many miles across, run as iron-fisted dictatorships, powered by ass-loads of antimatter, and still take tens of thousands of years at least to get to nearby stars.
Nice for space opera or fantasy sci fi, but not for realistic science fiction.

How do you figure tens of thousands of years? Getting up to 0.01c is plausible with efficient Fusion drives, and that gives travel times of only hundreds of years for nearby stars. If Ramscoops are feasible (which is debatable in itself, of course) then velocities of 0.1c and higher might be achieved, allowing interstellar trips in less than a hundred years.

[Flyndaran]

Now, now. Disagreeing on how to budget a nation is not all smart vs. dumb. One can legitimately disagree. The money has to come from somewhere.

[Flyndaran]

Originally Posted by vierasmarius

Less plausible than FTL? World Arc ships are an engineering problem, not a physics one. Notably, they don't require exotic matter, Type III civilization energies, or completely new laws of physics. I agree that they're unlikely, but please, let's not exaggerate their difficulty.



How do you figure tens of thousands of years? Getting up to 0.01c is plausible with efficient Fusion drives, and that gives travel times of only hundreds of years for nearby stars. If Ramscoops are feasible (which is debatable in itself, of course) then velocities of 0.1c and higher might be achieved, allowing interstellar trips in less than a hundred years.

General relativity does not negate FTL, just makes it harder. I just meant that impossible is impossible is impossible. Technically possible by not technically breaking laws of physics does not make something possible. It's technically possible for everyone to wake up tomorrow and give me all their money. But that ain't gonna' happen.

Ramscoops are superscience in the majority of known space. Starting off by assuming engines that haven't been made to work even in labs is a bit off.
Even then you are assuming nearly all the ship to be stupidly huge expensive drive and tank.
You are getting into the realm of moving tiny moon sized ships. Nice for a paperback science fiction novel, but kind of silly for hard realism.

[vierasmarius]

Originally Posted by JCurwen3

For politicians, and sadly probably a vast majority of the population, those arguments in favour of such missions will have been seen and still be seen as "not much". It's my opinion that such arguments about the benefits apply also to their interstellar analogues, although sadly those arguments will similarly fall on deaf ears.

You're absolutely right about that. The current economic model makes anything that doesn't provide a direct return to the investor (not to society as a whole), within probably no more than a decade, basically impossible to fund. Politicians who try to encourage such projects get branded as frivolous spenders or worse, and are especially unlikely to pursue long-term projects since their job security hinges on satisfying immediate (ie, ≤4 year) concerns of their constituents. This is especially unfortunate when you consider the amount of money currently being spent on things that don't benefit anyone (or only a very few). I'm not going to go into specifics, since I don't think we need a political flame war on here.

[Flyndaran]

Originally Posted by vierasmarius

..I'm not going to go into specifics, since I don't think we need a political flame war on here.

Nope, you're right. Democracy's greatest strength is that everyone gets a vote. Democracy's greatest weakness is that EVERYONE gets a vote. :)
Seriously though, it would take a dictatorship to force through the huge expenditures needed to send a viable probe interstellar distances... for the foreseeable future at least.

[JCurwen3]

Originally Posted by Flyndaran

Giant space traveling genetically stable over long term biodomes? I like the concept, but they are less plausible than FTL in my book.
They would have to be many miles across, run as iron-fisted dictatorships, powered by ass-loads of antimatter, and still take tens of thousands of years at least to get to nearby stars.
Nice for space opera or fantasy sci fi, but not for realistic science fiction.

Stasis perservation / cold sleep is the most plausible and feasible, IMO. And you're probably right about the drawbacks and poor feasibility of world arcs. My personal favourite idea would be a super-ultra-tech means of benefiting from time dilation to subjectively shorten the trip, but that may be less feasible or plausible than world arcs.

Although the world arcs would be a lot better of an idea in a transhuman or better yet post-biological society, where we wouldn't need biodomes or to care about weak flesh forms. The ships could be small mobile networked server farms with uploaded minds interacting with each other and entertaining themselves in virtual environments along the way.

The most implausible idea in sci-fi to me is that we'll go out in the stars, or even the planets, made of fragile flesh and blood. So much easier with more robust forms.