How to leave the Solar system.

[AlexanderHowl]

Generation ships are probably not socially feasible for a number of factors (limited resources, limited space, etc.). Nanostasis ships, with a small percentage of people cycling in and out of stasis, are probably more socially feasible, and they have the advantage that only a small percentage of people will be awake to suffer if anything goes wrong. The advantage of a nanostasis ship is also that the people can cycle in and out while they wait for terraforming as well. With the right design, the original passengers will only spend twenty years (their effective time) traveling and waiting for their new world.

Nanostasis ships with cycling populations also allow for plenty of adventures. For example, the automated processes wake you up as scheduled, but there is no one to greet you. When you and the other newly awakened are able to go exploring, you find that the previous cycle group is missing. What happened to them and will it happen to you too?

[Phil Masters]

Originally Posted by selenite

The Mayflower had 102 passengers. 45 of them died the first winter in Plymouth. Other settlements were wiped out entirely.

Perceived acceptable levels of risk tend to fall as TL rises. And the Mayflower colonists could reasonably have hoped that each generation of their descendants would mostly be much better off than themselves (and be better off than they would have been in Europe) -- and if they themselves died, well, they wouldn't have any descendants to impose crappy lives on.

[Johnny1A.2]

Originally Posted by Phil Masters

Perceived acceptable levels of risk tend to fall as TL rises.

We don't have a good enough baseline to assume that as a general rule. It's been true for Western Civilization over the last couple of centuries, but that could as easily be a function of other factors as TL rise. We can't count on it in the future.

[Phil Masters]

Originally Posted by Johnny1A.2

We don't have a good enough baseline to assume that as a general rule. It's been true for Western Civilization over the last couple of centuries, but that could as easily be a function of other factors as TL rise. We can't count on it in the future.

I suspect that it's at least partly necessary, in that accidents with higher tech systems can be more widely catastrophic. Also, high-tech societies will probably usually offer most people the option of living in reasonable comfort at low risk, which will make them less inclined to accept higher risks in the hopes of improved personal circumstances.

Plus, higher-tech systems can by definition include more advanced safety systems, which are likely to be habit-forming once they've started appearing. How can you keep them down on the no-guard-rails asbestos factory, now that they've seen OSHA?

[AlexanderHowl]

I agree. Society itself will likely act to oppose such risky behaviors, as the fanactism of a few may doom generations of descendants to loneliness and insanity between the stars. The advantage of a nanostasis ship is that the original colonists can logically claim that they are only dooming themselves and are not consigning generations of descendants to isolation and madness.

[Johnny1A.2]

Originally Posted by AlexanderHowl

I agree. Society itself will likely act to oppose such risky behaviors, as the fanactism of a few may doom generations of descendants to loneliness and insanity between the stars. The advantage of a nanostasis ship is that the original colonists can logically claim that they are only dooming themselves and are not consigning generations of descendants to isolation and madness.

There's no such thing as 'society' as a singular, just as 'humanity' is not an entity that makes decisions or takes actions. There are separate governments, local cultures and groups, specific organizations. They'll all have different risk tolerances and different definitions of what is 'risky', just as separate nations and groups do now.

Most of the Earthside nations we see in THS would probably be hesitant to permit a generation ship to launch, regardless of the comfort or quality of life aboard it. The Duncanites would likely have different views, as would again the Red Duncanites.

[malloyd]

Originally Posted by Johnny1A.2

Most of the Earthside nations we see in THS would probably be hesitant to permit a generation ship to launch, regardless of the comfort or quality of life aboard it. The Duncanites would likely have different views, as would again the Red Duncanites.

Not that some people can't get pretty fanatical about "for the children" but there does come a point when it gets ridiculous enough most people stop buying into it. "How can you condemn thousands of generations of your descendants to have you as ancestors, instead of the clearly better ones they could have had if you had just refrained from breeding". I can't see most societies as actually being reluctant to *permit* a generation ship. As long as you are wasting your money and future on it and not mine, go ahead.

[RogerBW]

Test case: "My spouse, who is divorcing me, wants to go on the ship and I don't, and plans to take our unborn child with them."

[Fred Brackin]

Originally Posted by RogerBW

Test case: "My spouse, who is divorcing me, wants to go on the ship and I don't, and plans to take our unborn child with them."

Divide the child in two. Or at least clone the embryo and give each parent one of them.

[Astromancer]

In the end, there will always be explorers and risk takers. So people will want to go and justify to themselves the risk. Since we're talking about the THS setting where large space habitats are part of the setting we can assume any generation starship will be vast and use multiple redundant systems. Many of the systems will be biological in nature so that new parts can be grown in deep space.

These ships would likely be the safest vehicles ever built by humanity. No one would risk interstellar space in less