With the science that we know today ...

[Jorge]

... humans will never travel outside of the solar system. Anyone wish to challenge me on that prediction?

Note : I said, "with the science that we know today". This does not include science fiction or wild, unrestricted speculation.

IOW, I'm saying that unless 'something' -- undiscovered to this date -- pops out of the woodpile,
watching Star Trek is as close as we'll get to seeing humans hopping from star to star.

Oh, and, even within our own solar system, economics alone will likely make trips to the other planets prohibitive. For example, NASA is projecting that the next moon shot will cost about $100 billion dollars -- that's just to the moon. Anybody wanna see their taxes triple? Sure, who needs to eat anyway?


Jorge

[rogue06]

Humans will never travel outside the solar system if they maintain the level of technology currently available. Gotta agree.

[Jme]

... humans will never travel outside of the solar system. Anyone wish to challenge me on that prediction?

Note : I said, "with the science that we know today". This does not include science fiction or wild, unrestricted speculation.

That should really be “with the technology we have today”

IOW, I'm saying that unless 'something' -- undiscovered to this date -- pops out of the woodpile,
watching Star Trek is as close as we'll get to seeing humans hopping from star to star.

Oh, and, even within our own solar system, economics alone will likely make trips to the other planets prohibitive. For example, NASA is projecting that the next moon shot will cost about $100 billion dollars -- that's just to the moon. Anybody wanna see their taxes triple? Sure, who needs to eat anyway?


Jorge

What's your point? I don't think anyone here would disagree and more to the point haven't you already started a thread on this, in natural sciences?


Me I'm all for space research – we live on a small planet with limited resources and are surrounded by potential resources. Sure it is expensive but the payoff is worth it.


We're getting to the point where materials research is opening up the possibility of the orbital tether (space elevator) – still sci-fi at the moment, but it is a possibility – this would drastically reduce the costs of space travel within the system.

[SteveF]

I'd like to think it were possible, but it seems rather unlikely. On the subject of Science Fiction, one reason I like Alastair Reynolds so much is that whilst in his future universe technology is considerably more advanced than ours, it still seems to be plausible. His characters take decades to travel anywhere, for example, because there isn't some convenient faster than light gizmo readily available. I'd recommend Revelation Space for those looking for a place to start his books.

In terms of cost for space exploration, in general terms it doesn't particularly bother me. I'm rather romantic in this regard; I like blue skies research and endeavour (not just in terms of space) and am extremely excited by the idea of exploring space. If it costs a lot, then I think society should be prepared to spend it. So much of our money goes on the mundane, I think it's nice that some of it is spent on things that fire the imagination.

[NeilUnreal]

We likely won't get far on today's technology. If we tried really, really hard -- a long-term, whole-earth kind of project -- we might get as far as Proxima Centauri or Alpha Centauri on today's technology, but probably not much farther.

-Neil

[Jorge]

Humans will never travel outside the solar system if they maintain the level of technology currently available. Gotta agree.

More than once you and your compadres have made me wonder if my English writing skills are poor ... nay, terrible.

Your input is NOT responsive to the point. Of course with the current level of technology humans cannot travel outside of the solar system. But I didn't say 'with the present level of technology', I said 'with what science knows'. IOW, it'll take an unimaginable (excluding science fiction) scientific breakthrough, not a technological breakthrough. You do understand the difference, right?


Jorge

[Tiggy]

More than once you and your compadres have made me wonder if my English writing skills are poor ... nay, terrible.

It's not so much your writing as your arrogant and willfully ignorant approach that sucks out loud and in three colors.

Your input is NOT responsive to the point. Of course with the current level of technology humans cannot travel outside of the solar system. But I didn't say 'with the present level of technology', I said 'with what science knows'. IOW, it'll take an unimaginable (excluding science fiction) scientific breakthrough, not a technological breakthrough. You do understand the difference, right?

What good would it do for us to speculate with you on new science breakthroughs when you've repeatedly demonstrated almost totally ignorance of what science knows today?

- T

[Von Smith]

More than once you and your compadres have made me wonder if my English writing skills are poor ... nay, terrible.

Your input is NOT responsive to the point. Of course with the current level of technology humans cannot travel outside of the solar system. But I didn't say 'with the present level of technology', I said 'with what science knows'. IOW, it'll take an unimaginable (excluding science fiction) scientific breakthrough, not a technological breakthrough. You do understand the difference, right?


Jorge

In that case I can't say I agree. I'm not saying you're wrong, either, just that I don't think there's any basis for certainty. The main problems I see to manned space travel are logistical, not theoretical. Obviously it's *physically* possible to travel outside the solar system: we've sent unmanned space probes out of the solar system already. The unsolved problems for manned expeditions are all logistical.

The question is whether we can keep a human crew healthy for years on end in space. And the truth is: there is no way of knowing whether doing this with our current *theoretical* knowledge of science is possible until we actually solve the problem. It can be tricky to guess what is possible with a given level of scientific knowledge: we still don't know exactly how the builders of Stonehenge pulled it off, and if it hadn't actually been done, I don't think anybody would have guessed that ancient Polynesians could have crossed the Pacific in their primitive boats.

[Jorge]

That should really be “with the technology we have today”

Read my post # 6.

What's your point? I don't think anyone here would disagree and more to the point haven't you already started a thread on this, in natural sciences?

This thread was inspired by the latest Scientific American issue (Oct 2007) where they write of 'The Future of Exploring Space'.

The point is how Naturalistic beliefs --- such as belief in ESPs and ETL before any evidence
was / is available --- is the dominant factor in determining the "science" that is pursued.

Me I'm all for space research – we live on a small planet with limited resources and are surrounded by potential resources. Sure it is expensive but the payoff is worth it.

Try thinking a bit beyond the tip of your nose. If a goal is scientifically unattainable then it doesn't matter
how much money you throw at it. Note that I did not say technologically unattainable, I said scientifically.

We're getting to the point where materials research is opening up the possibility of the orbital tether (space elevator) – still sci-fi at the moment, but it is a possibility – this would drastically reduce the costs of space travel within the system.

(sigh ...) Okay, I have no further comment.

Jorge

[Jme]

Read my post # 6.

Besides the point really as I was wrong too – as Von Smith was kind enough to point out we do have the scientific knowledge to get out of the system, even the technical ability. The problem as I see it would be economical. It would be a big risk on a technical front but a multigenerational ship would be possible. Do you disagree that it would be technically possible?

This thread was inspired by the latest Scientific American issue (Oct 2007) where they write of 'The Future of Exploring Space'.

And my point was that you've started a thread almost identical in every way to this one – I know you're getting old and might be forgetting stuff so I brought it up to remind you....

The point is how Naturalistic beliefs --- such as belief in ESPs and ETL before any evidence
was / is available --- is the dominant factor in determining the "science" that is pursued.

?? As opposed to what? How would YEC beliefs benefit science? Of course the idea that we can achieve things is the driving force in where the money is spent (actually it generally determined nby where the money can be made) so what?

Try thinking a bit beyond the tip of your nose. If a goal is scientifically unattainable then it doesn't matter
how much money you throw at it. Note that I did not say technologically unattainable, I said scientifically.

If we take your lead on this (or apparent lead) and not research anything that doesn't already have solid science behind it already wouldn't we be cutting ourselves off from numerous scientific advances?


At one point it was scientifically unknown if we could travel faster than the speed of sound, whether or not vaccines would work, whether or not we could split the atom and countless other examples – we now know and have achieved a great many things. Sure there have been failures and we've found that there are things that we can't achieve.


There is nothing in terms of science that is preventing us from reaching other stars – theoretically at least – in multigenerational ships, it would take thousands of years but it could be done.


It is theoretically possible to construct orbital tethers – this time it is still completely on the drawing board stage – but research is progressing and someday it might be reality.


Overall from this it appears that you are not one to encourage scientific progress.... Luddite!

[Jorge]

In terms of cost for space exploration, in general terms it doesn't particularly bother me.

I'm rather romantic in this regard; I like blue skies research and endeavour (not just in terms of space) and am extremely excited by the idea of exploring space. If it costs a lot, then I think society should be prepared to spend it. So much of our money goes on the mundane, I think it's nice that some of it is spent on things that fire the imagination.

I don't think you guys are quite getting the point. If it's scientifically unattainable then any money spent is wasted money. Try this :

The U. S. Patent Office no longer considers any applications for patents for a perpetual motion machine. Why? And why not spend money,
lots of it, on something that would solve the energy crisis forever? Answer : because it's scientifically unattainable, that's why.

It has nothing to do with being a romantic ... just follow the science.

Jorge

[Von Smith]

This thread was inspired by the latest Scientific American issue (Oct 2007) where they write of 'The Future of Exploring Space'.

The point is how Naturalistic beliefs --- such as belief in ESPs and ETL before any evidence
was / is available --- is the dominant factor in determining the "science" that is pursued.

You already know that there is evidence for extra-solar planets, and that the case for them rests on more than just prior belief, even if you personally don't think that they exist. Let's not pretend otherwise.

As for ETL: I find it hard to believe that you once studied science at a graduate level; you certainly don't show the sort of curiosity about the natural world one would expect a prospective scientist to have. One need not already have a belief that life exists elsewhere to be curious about whether or not it might, or to consider the possibility worth checking out. If life *does* exist elsewhere, wouldn't you want to find out? (And, if life doesn't exist anywhere else but here, wouldn't you want to find *that* out?)

But then, I guess one shouldn't expect anybody who embraces a motto like "Choice trumps knowledge" to value the pursuit of knowledge.

Try thinking a bit beyond the tip of your nose. If a goal is scientifically unattainable then it doesn't matter
how much money you throw at it. Note that I did not say technologically unattainable, I said scientifically.

How ironic that you would exhort somebody to think "a bit beyond the tip of your nose" one moment, and then turn right around and suggest that there is something wrong with scientists doing precisely that.

[Von Smith]

I don't think you guys are quite getting the point. If it's scientifically unattainable then any money spent is wasted money. Try this :

The U. S. Patent Office no longer considers any applications for patents for a perpetual motion machine. Why? And why not spend money,
lots of it, on something that would solve the energy crisis forever? Answer : because it's scientifically unattainable, that's why.

It has nothing to do with being a romantic ... just follow the science.

Jorge

You haven't established that extrasolar exploration violates any laws of thermodynamics, so what is your point? As I suggested earlier, it might or might not ever be *logistically* feasible to send a manned mission to the Centauri systems, but that is not the same as saying that doing so would require radically different physics.

[NeilUnreal]

There is nothing in the science we know today that prevents such a journey; the science we know today simply sets the technological and economic bars very, very high.

With the science we know today, there's nothing to prevent us from eventually reaching other galaxies, at least as a species, if not individuals. The science we know today just makes even the beginning of such a journey very impractical in the near future (say, in the next few centuries or even millenia).

As Von Smith said, the limitations are logistical, not theoretical.

-Neil

[SteveF]

I don't think you guys are quite getting the point. If it's scientifically unattainable then any money spent is wasted money. Try this

Well quite. However, I was responding to your comment about the expense of future moon missions and using this as a basis to describe my philosophy to space exploration in general.