APP - Awesome interstellar travel

Should we do it?

  • OF COURSE! That's fuckin' awesome!

    Votes: 9 75.0%
  • No, cancer research blah blah blah blah plus I have a vagina

    Votes: 1 8.3%
  • Not sure + I have a vagina

    Votes: 2 16.7%

  • Total voters
    12

FUCK THE POLICE

911 EVERY DAY
This is a map of another star system:

500px-GJ581orbits.svg.png


[ame]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gliese_581[/ame]

It has a planet on it that could possible support life. It's in the habitable zone and it has seven times Earth's gravity.

The star systems only 20 LY away. At 30% of the speed of light, we could do that in 70 years. We have the technology to make a starship that could do that and be launched within our lifetime. O_O

So what do you say?
 
Going to the moon hasn't turned a profit either, unless you count bragging rights to the greatest achievement of human kind ever as being worth anything.
Yet it did turn a profit. People do not realize how many inventions were made for the space program. It's more than paid for itself in its contributions to the economy.
 
Yet it did turn a profit. People do not realize how many inventions were made for the space program. It's more than paid for itself in its contributions to the economy.

Going to THE MOON has never turned a profit. Memory foam and tang aren't exactly moon specific, nor can you argue that whatever money has been made off of them exceeds the amount invested in the space program that produced them.
 
NASA's budget in the 60's was massive - like 30 billion a year in today's dollars, or 0.5% of the total GDP. I don't think it was profitable. It was done, basically, just because of how awesome it was.
 
NASA's budget in the 60's was massive - like 30 billion a year in today's dollars, or 0.5% of the total GDP. I don't think it was profitable. It was done, basically, just because of how awesome it was.

Yeah, that's my point. $30,000,000,000,000 is a lot of tang.
 
Going to THE MOON has never turned a profit. Memory foam and tang aren't exactly moon specific, nor can you argue that whatever money has been made off of them exceeds the amount invested in the space program that produced them.
I can argue that, but it really is unnecessary.

http://www.thespaceplace.com/nasa/spinoffs.html

Out of a $2.4 trillion budget, less than 0.8% is spent on the entire space program! That's less than 1 penny for every dollar spent. The average American spends more of their budget on their cable bill, eating out or entertainment than this yet the benefits of space flight are remarkable. It has been conservatively estimated by U.S. space experts that for every dollar the U.S. spends on R and D in the space program, it receives $7 back in the form of corporate and personal income taxes from increased jobs and economic growth. Besides the obvious jobs created in the aerospace industry, thousands more are created by many other companies applying NASA technology in nonspace related areas that affect us daily. One cannot even begin to place a dollar value on the lives saved and improved lifestyles of the less fortunate. Space technology benefits everyone and a rising technological tide does raise all boats.

There are more than just monetary benefits from the space program. From how things run, to baby food has been improved and we have made money off of them.

There are simply far more benefits than we have losses because of the space program.
 
This is a map of another star system:

500px-GJ581orbits.svg.png


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gliese_581

It has a planet on it that could possible support life. It's in the habitable zone and it has seven times Earth's gravity.

The star systems only 20 LY away. At 30% of the speed of light, we could do that in 70 years. We have the technology to make a starship that could do that and be launched within our lifetime. O_O

So what do you say?
I think by the time we got that spacecraft there it would be met by people who made the trip faster but left later...
 
I think by the time we got that spacecraft there it would be met by people who made the trip faster but left later...

I just figured out that fusion rockets could only reach 10% of the speed of light. Which would take 200 years, so it wouldn't really be worth it. :-/

Fission rockets can only reach about 3% of the speed of light, and that's the fastest current day technology we have.

Light sails, therefore, might be a much better idea. We'd need to launch a sheet of mylar 1 km thick into space, though. It would take a km wide laser pouring 10 gigawatts a year into it, but it could make it to the nearest star in 10 years. Which, honestly, doesn't seem all that unreasonable. It could happen in our lifetime. And we'd only be able to send probes, since the shielding required to send a crew would simply put far too much weight into it. Also, we could up the wattage of our laser in the future as our technology becomes better, which would provide some degree of built in advancement (although it doesn't rule out the possibility of us making some massive breakthrough in other kinds of rockets).

The possibility of FTL technology is something that doesn't seem unreasonable from the current viewpoint. The "warp" drive would require exotic matter with negative mass, and the wormhole concept similarly requires an anti-gravity field. Grind told me that there may be "natural" worm holes out there, but I've only ever read about wormholes in the context of them being black holes. He heard it on a Discovery documentary or something like that, which makes me sigh. The possibility of anti-gravity seems slim, but we won't know for certain until we get the Theory of Everything, which will fully describe gravity as a force, and could possibly offer ways to go FTL.

BTW, the reason FTL travel is time travel is that, for the person in a rocket going at the speed of light, the speed of light is essentially infinity speed. Time dilation comes into play - at 30% of the speed of light, time is dighlighted from the voyagers perspective by 0.1 times. At 99%, time is dilated by about 2.5 times. At 99.99%, that's 22 times. 99.99999999% - 22360 times. And of course, at the speed of light that's infinity. It is very limited for an outside observer, but you could travel across the universe from your perspective in the blink of an eye if you could travel at the speed of light. You'd just arrive 80 billion years in the future and everyone you loved would be dead. What people really want to do is have the space travelers go faster than the speed of light from an observers perspective - which is something else entirely, and would require the bending of space. I've heard people say that even this concept would be time travel, but I don't see why it would be so if time dilation didn't put you above infinity speed.
 
Last edited:
I think even damo realizes that just doing pure science research for the sake of it has exponential economic benefits in the long term.

Damo would need to make the argument that private industry would be better suited for it in order to avoid contradicting himself. I'm pretty sure he or Dano (I can never remember the difference) was arguing that the private industry should have sent a man to the moon. This was back on fP.com
 
Damo would need to make the argument that private industry would be better suited for it in order to avoid contradicting himself. I'm pretty sure he or Dano (I can never remember the difference) was arguing that the private industry should have sent a man to the moon. This was back on fP.com

If we had to rely on private industry for all space and scientific research, the US would be nothing be an insignificant backwater in 200 years.

Private industry research is great for, for instance, finding out which eye-liner looks best. For finding the higgs boson or going to moon, or virtually any other pure research project that has a farther economic reach than next financial quarter, the government is necessary.
 
Back
Top