Interstellar Ark

xantox writes "There are three strategies to travel 10.5 light-years from Earth to Epsilon Eridani and bring humanity into a new stellar system : 1) Wait for future discovery of Star Trek physics and go there almost instantaneously, 2) Build a relativistic rocket powered by antimatter and go there in 22 years by accelerating constantly at 1g, provided that you master stellar amounts of energy (so, nothing realistic until now), but what about 3): go there by classical means, by building a gigantic Ark of several miles in radius, propulsed by nuclear fusion and featuring artificial gravity, oceans and cities, for a travel of seven centuries — where many generations of men and women would live ? This new speculation uses some actual physics and math to figure out how far are our fantasies of space travel from their actual implementation."

Comments

Re:The most likely scenario

[Prune]

How is it that I get a bunch of + moderations just a few days ago in my posts, yet with just a couple of - my karma drops so much?

Re: Photon gathering (and x-rays, RF, IR, etc.)

[fyngyrz]

lack of intel as to which caves to nuke

I don't really think that's a "practical" issue. They knew the area down to a few square miles for a short time. A few baby nukes, and the odds favor having gotten the target.

lack of an effective vector

What are you saying here? A vector, in common parlance, is a direction. So you are saying... ?

fallout patterns

Very little fallout from throwing a small nuke into a cave; and given the hundreds of nuclear tests in the fifties, most far larger than anything I'm talking about here, right in the middle of the US, fallout isn't, in fact, a significant issue. There would be some, of course, and most of it would be in Afghanistan. I don't see how you can make a case that Bush cares about the people of Afghanistan from the evidence, though it might be amusing to see you try. :)

certain political backlash from everyone and their dog

Again, we're talking about the reign of King-Emperor George Bush, Master of the World, Ruler of All He Surveys, Maker and Breaker of Laws, High Justice to Removal of Rights, The Decider, and Speaker To God Almighty Himself. I just don't think you can make a case that the finger presently on the button is in any way sensitive to other people's opinions. Including opinions in his, and my, own country.

possible accidental nuclear response from Russia if ICBMs/cruise missiles are used

No, no. You just tell them what you're doing. We did that when they were well armed - which they aren't now. In the 70's, you'd have had a point. Currently, they know that we don't care to nuke a democracy, which they sort-of are, and they have a much smaller arsenal. They'd be annihilated, we'd survive. Not much point in getting into a serious contest under those conditions. But again, channels exist to inform them, they'd be informed, and no one would do anything untoward. I don't buy your assertion here for a moment.

possible nuclear retaliation from non-state actors

If they had nukes, they would have already used them. Ergo, they don't. Nor do they need a reason to use them; they're ready to nuke us right now. They're ready to carry them in their jockstraps and set them off as carried. Any silly idea you might have that doing anything would "incite" them to want to nuke us is purest fairy tales. They already want to nuke us to the point where every nerve ending in their bodies sings at the very idea. However, the actual folks being nuked have a tendency to be slowed down. Just ask the residents of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. They were a little pre-occupied after their experience, don't you agree? Might not be so bad to have Osama and/or his lieutenants so preoccupied.

Realpolitik, baby, and stop pretending otherwise - no-one is buying.

(A) it doesn't matter if "you're buying" because it's old George Bush at the helm, and he doesn't care what you think. He's not "selling", ok? He's telling. (B) The reason people don't buy is because they really don't understand nuclear weapons. Death by radiation isn't in any way worse than death by cholera or nerve gas or systemic disease from falling on a Pungi stick. Death by nuclear blast isn't in any way worse than death by MOAB or SMART-PIG. Cancer from fallout isn't any worse than cancer from agent orange. Death by nuclear flame isn't any worse than death by napalm. Fallout is an issue, but then again, show me a country that's all healthy-like after having a war conducted on its soil and I'll be quite surprised. You'll note that both Hiroshima and Nagasaki have been rebuilt and are thriving; and those bombs were not relatively clean modern tactical weapons - they were truly filthy 15kt and 20kt atte