Slashdot Mirror


How Civilizations Can Spread Across a Galaxy

New submitter kanweg writes: If you look at the Milky Way at night, it appears not much is changing. But over time, stars get closer and further to each other. Coryn Bailer-Jones, an astrophysicist at Germany's Max Planck Institute for Astronomy in Heidelberg, found that of 14 stars coming within three light-years of Earth, the closest encounter is likely to be HIP 85605, which now lies some 16 light years away in the constellation of Hercules. It will get a close as the Oort cloud.

This could be a (very long-term) method for human or alien civilizations to practice star hopping. Why travel 16 light-years through space when you can just wait until a star with a suitable planet gets close enough that you only have to cover the last stretch with an artificial spaceship? Take your time for a thoughtful response; it will take another 250,000 to 470,000 year before the close encounter.

272 comments

  1. "Take your time for a thoughtful response" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    no
    Also, wouldn't a star near the oort cloud mess up our entire solar system?

    1. Re:"Take your time for a thoughtful response" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      The Oort cloud is a hypothetical structure.

    2. Re:"Take your time for a thoughtful response" by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Also, wouldn't a star near the oort cloud mess up our entire solar system?

      Yes, but three lightyears is not "near".

      Anyway, traveling 16LY is only trivially more difficult than travelling 3LY. The hard part is getting up to speed, and slowing down at the destination. The long coast in the middle is easy, and if you are going fast, it is time dilated anyway.

    3. Re:"Take your time for a thoughtful response" by erice · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Anyway, traveling 16LY is only trivially more difficult than travelling 3LY. The hard part is getting up to speed, and slowing down at the destination. The long coast in the middle is easy, and if you are going fast, it is time dilated anyway.

      Getting up to speed is really really hard. So much so that you can largely forget about taking advantage of time dilation. Unless you can salvage a Bussard Ramjet (current thinking is that it won't work) you are not going to get that fast. Traveling 3LY instead of 16LY means only having to reach 1/5 the speed to arrive in a "reasonable" time. That's a big help. It might be the difference between doable but hard and hopeless.

    4. Re:"Take your time for a thoughtful response" by xaotikdesigns · · Score: 1

      THat's the idea. We colonize Mars. The second star comes in and it's gravitation effects either fling mars out into he galaxy, or you luck out and they start orbiting the new star. Either way, people are now colonizing the rest of the galaxy (at least after the ones in scenario 1 find a new star and thaw out...).

      --
      XDInd
    5. Re:"Take your time for a thoughtful response" by tnk1 · · Score: 4, Informative

      Sort of.

      Yes, if you assume that we'll be accelerating in all cases to .999c or something like that, then you're probably right, it doesn't matter as much.

      However, if you are only capable of making it to .5c or .8c, safely, then it could make all the difference in the world.

      At those lower velocities, the time dilation is not really all that much, and you'd not only have a trip that is longer, but the observer would also be experiencing a longer relative trip due to dilation being much less pronounced below .9c. The Lorentz factor at .5c is only 1.155. It only gets to 2 at .866c. Due to relativistic effects, our ability to accelerate to and then to maintain safe flight (such as your ship not being annihilated by hitting small particles of matter) at the higher velocities is very challenging, so assuming that relativistic time dilation can be counted on to even out the logistical problem is probably not warranted.

      That said, if we have to wait 400,000 years for the "quick" jump to open up, I imagine we would have made the "long" trip thousands of times over by then. That interval is minuscule in geologic time, but an eternity compared to our current rate of technological advancement. (Assuming our present rate of advancement doesn't come to a grinding halt, of course.)

    6. Re:"Take your time for a thoughtful response" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That said, if we have to wait 400,000 years for the "quick" jump to open up, I imagine we would have made the "long" trip thousands of times over by then.

      True, but it's a matter of relative comfort. Do you want to do the long trip by canoe, or take the leisurly route via cruise ship (aka your home planet) for most of it?

    7. Re:"Take your time for a thoughtful response" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      " The second star comes in and it's gravitation effects either fling mars out into he galaxy, or"...

      it finally teaches you the difference between its and it is.

    8. Re:"Take your time for a thoughtful response" by CozmicCharlie · · Score: 1

      no Also, wouldn't a star near the oort cloud mess up our entire solar system?

      It seems like things would get quite messy if HIP 85605 has a planetary system of it's own. An Oort cloud equivelant would be getting perrty darm close.

    9. Re: "Take your time for a thoughtful response" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not that it matters, but there's no proof the Oort Cloud even exists.

    10. Re:"Take your time for a thoughtful response" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      That said, if we have to wait 400,000 years for the "quick" jump to open up, I imagine we would have made the "long" trip thousands of times over by then.

      True, but it's a matter of relative comfort. Do you want to do the long trip by canoe, or take the leisurly route via cruise ship (aka your home planet) for most of it?

      Chances are, if nobody does it by canoe to prove it can be done, nobody else will want to invest in building a cruise ship at all.

    11. Re:"Take your time for a thoughtful response" by Applehu+Akbar · · Score: 2

      Minor quibble: if a Bussard ramjet can't be built, how can you salvage one?

    12. Re:"Take your time for a thoughtful response" by fafalone · · Score: 1

      Due to relativistic effects, our ability to accelerate to and then to maintain safe flight (such as your ship not being annihilated by hitting small particles of matter) at the higher velocities is very challenging

      Somebody's never heard of a Deflector Shield.

      What's the time dilation like at warp? I doubt we'll be worrying about speeds slower than light if we're ever traveling between stars (and the presumption that our knowledge of physics, with our not-even-500-years-of-electric lights infant knowledge, is absolutely correct and 50,000 or 200,000 years from now we won't have found a solution, is laughable on its face).

    13. Re: "Take your time for a thoughtful response" by Sperbels · · Score: 1

      Except all those comets that keep showing up. I don't suppose they are necessarily coming from anywhere though....God could be creating them out of thin air and hurling them at the sun.

    14. Re:"Take your time for a thoughtful response" by 0111+1110 · · Score: 1

      Chances are, if nobody does it by canoe to prove it can be done, nobody else will want to invest in building a cruise ship at all.

      And if we have not bothered to travel 16 light years in 400,000 years of tech advancement then we probalby will have no interest in going 3 ly at that point either. We could head for alpha centauri right now if we had the will and the billions of extra dollars floating around.

      First build the the ship at a Lagrange point. Then launch for our nearest neighbor. If we used an Orion drive the astronauts could be at Alpha Centauri in maybe 75 to 80 years. A single human lifetime. Unfortunately, unless we got very lucky with our ship design we probably couldn't get adult astronauts there before they died. So it has to be a generation ship albeit barely with just 2 generations.

      Or we could just send computers and robots there. I personally think it would be better to send at least some quasi-suicidal humans as well because nothing ever works out the way it is supposed to. For such a long trip I think it would be wise to have tech people to fix things and adjust for unpredicted events and breakdowns.

      --
      Quite an experience to live in fear, isn't it? That's what it is to be a slave.
    15. Re:"Take your time for a thoughtful response" by 0111+1110 · · Score: 1

      I doubt we'll be worrying about speeds slower than light if we're ever traveling between stars

      FTL is impossible. So forget it. Best you've got is time dilation. Either we will travel to the stars at less than c or we won't do it at all. I for one truly hope that we do it. Although clearly I won't be alive to see it.

      and the presumption that our knowledge of physics, with our not-even-500-years-of-electric lights infant knowledge, is absolutely correct and 50,000 or 200,000 years from now we won't have found a solution, is laughable on its face

      Unfortunately the presumption that it is incorrect in the sort of good way that you seem to be hoping is even more laughable. Physics rarely works to make things easier for us Just the opposite. It almost seems to have a grudge against whatever it is we want to do. If our theories prove to be wrong it is more plausible imo that it will make things more difficult for us to do cool stuff. Not less.

      --
      Quite an experience to live in fear, isn't it? That's what it is to be a slave.
    16. Re:"Take your time for a thoughtful response" by Gavagai80 · · Score: 1

      Bring it through a portal from an alternate universe where it can be built.

      --
      This space intentionally left blank
    17. Re: "Take your time for a thoughtful response" by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

      He's not a very good shot, is He?

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    18. Re:"Take your time for a thoughtful response" by unrtst · · Score: 1

      Traveling 3LY instead of 16LY means only having to reach 1/5 the speed to arrive in a "reasonable" time. That's a big help. It might be the difference between doable but hard and hopeless.

      Meanwhile, if we wait for that 3LY window, we'll be waiting 250,000 - 470,000 years (15,000 - 29,000 x's as long as it would take to travel at light speed right now).
      Let's consider your 1/5th figure... if traveling at 1/5th the speed of light:
      * leaving now, it'd take ~80 years
      * leaving when we're 3LY away, the travel would take only 15 years, but you have to add on the 250,000 - 470,000 year wait. No society we know of has lasted that long.

      If someone happens to swing by close while we're at a high point in society, then go for it, but it's not something I'd try to plan on doing (disclaimer: i have trouble planning what I'll be doing a week or two from now; I still think I'm qualified enough to say we can't plan on the scale of hundreds of thousands of years)

    19. Re:"Take your time for a thoughtful response" by rubycodez · · Score: 1

      FTL is not forbidden by our best model of the subject, general relativity. A region of space moving FTL with an object inside it IS allowed.

      Don't make universal negatives, they're unprovable.

    20. Re:"Take your time for a thoughtful response" by tnk1 · · Score: 1

      Somebody's never heard of a Deflector Shield.

      Well, I didn't say impossible, just "very challenging".

      Considering that we have almost no idea if a deflector type device is even possible for this application, I decided to leave the science fiction out of the equation.

      Needless to say, if something, either a "shield" or some other functional means was devised to overcome the impact of high energy collisions, it would make travel at high relativistic velocities more feasible.

      I don't rule out FTL or "shields" in my personal views, but it is impossible to have a facts based discussion on concepts so speculative as to barely be distinguishable from fiction.

    21. Re:"Take your time for a thoughtful response" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh we will be able to build them, I'm sure.
      It will just be useless. Interstellar medium is most likely not dense enough to get sufficient fuel out of it.

    22. Re:"Take your time for a thoughtful response" by Grishnakh · · Score: 1

      Due to relativistic effects, our ability to accelerate to and then to maintain safe flight (such as your ship not being annihilated by hitting small particles of matter) at the higher velocities is very challenging,

      That's why you have to put a deflector array on the front of your ship.

      Or, you could make a big ablative shield out of ice.

    23. Re:"Take your time for a thoughtful response" by Grishnakh · · Score: 1

      You can also use cryonic means to extend the crews' lifespans.

    24. Re: "Take your time for a thoughtful response" by darkdoc · · Score: 1

      > FTL is not forbidden by our best model of the subject, general relativity. A region of space moving FTL with an object inside it IS allowed.

      No, you're not accounting for relativity. No matter how many frames of reference are "added", no object's speed will exceed "c" for *any* observers frame.

      The question is not what's "allowed", the question is what total "speed" does a given observer see.

      An object moving at .99c inside a .99c frame is only moving at .99c within THAT frame. From the outsider's "at rest" frame of reference, the inner object is only moving only slightly faster than its container.

    25. Re:"Take your time for a thoughtful response" by Grishnakh · · Score: 1

      Unfortunately the presumption that it is incorrect in the sort of good way that you seem to be hoping is even more laughable. Physics rarely works to make things easier for us Just the opposite. It almost seems to have a grudge against whatever it is we want to do. If our theories prove to be wrong it is more plausible imo that it will make things more difficult for us to do cool stuff. Not less.

      Huh? We're constantly discovering weird and potentially useful new properties of materials when we do things at an atomic scale; they're called "metamaterials". There's lots of weird quantum effects we're only now discovering. A good amount of our present technology absolutely relies on quantum physics now. The LED is a really good example of that, as is the laser.

    26. Re:"Take your time for a thoughtful response" by Grishnakh · · Score: 1

      Considering that we have almost no idea if a deflector type device is even possible for this application, I decided to leave the science fiction out of the equation.

      Well Arthur C. Clarke wrote a sci-fi book about a ship using a shield for this problem; I think the book was "Songs of Distant Earth". The shield was just a giant block of ice. Do you think that's beyond our technology? The ice tray in my freezer says no.

    27. Re:"Take your time for a thoughtful response" by K.+S.+Kyosuke · · Score: 1

      After you're done with using it, you send it through a black hole into the past to yourself.

      --
      Ezekiel 23:20
    28. Re:"Take your time for a thoughtful response" by K.+S.+Kyosuke · · Score: 1

      Well, Magellan was presumably able to afford hauling it only because it had an unlimited source of energy to power the vessel. If we'll have to rely on fusion, we'll definitely be on a mass budget.

      --
      Ezekiel 23:20
    29. Re:"Take your time for a thoughtful response" by toddestan · · Score: 1

      The problem isn't that you couldn't build one, the problem is that the density of hydrogen floating around in deep space is too low for it to work. So even if you managed to import one from an alternate universe where one is capable of working, it would be useless here.

    30. Re: "Take your time for a thoughtful response" by rubycodez · · Score: 0, Troll

      That's considering special relativity only; general relativity allows an energy density field lower than vacuum to expand and contract spacetime around a region (the Alcubierre metric), and it is possible the Casimir vacuum between two parallel conducting plates might fulfill this condition. There are experiments in progress to detect the Alcubierre metric, very open question.

      As a second reason to point out FTL is not only possible but happening now, there are galaxies moving away from us faster than light speed and more and more galaxies join that number all the time.

    31. Re:"Take your time for a thoughtful response" by khallow · · Score: 1

      He's probably speaking of the difference between 0.001 C and 0.005C. 3000 years of travel either way and a delta v that's far easier to achieve.

    32. Re:"Take your time for a thoughtful response" by tehcyder · · Score: 1

      You can also use cryonic means to extend the crews' lifespans.

      I think you mean that you could use cryonic means to extend the crews' lifespans if someone invented a working system of cryonics.

      Unless I missed something over the holidays, we don't have working suspended animation yet.

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
    33. Re:"Take your time for a thoughtful response" by tehcyder · · Score: 1

      What's the time dilation like at warp? I doubt we'll be worrying about speeds slower than light if we're ever traveling between stars (and the presumption that our knowledge of physics, with our not-even-500-years-of-electric lights infant knowledge, is absolutely correct and 50,000 or 200,000 years from now we won't have found a solution, is laughable on its face).

      Yes, but in less than a hundred years we will no doubt have discovered the secrets of time travel, cold fusion, free unlimited energy and instantaneous matter relocation, so we can just basically do whatever we want anyway.

      Because literally anything is possible.

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
    34. Re:"Take your time for a thoughtful response" by tehcyder · · Score: 1

      Don't make universal negatives, they're unprovable.

      Yes, we may indeed one day find Bertrand Russell's teapot orbiting the Earth.

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
    35. Re:"Take your time for a thoughtful response" by tehcyder · · Score: 1

      Considering that we have almost no idea if a deflector type device is even possible for this application, I decided to leave the science fiction out of the equation.

      Well Arthur C. Clarke wrote a sci-fi book about a ship using a shield for this problem; I think the book was "Songs of Distant Earth". The shield was just a giant block of ice. Do you think that's beyond our technology? The ice tray in my freezer says no.

      You can't argue with facts like that.

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
    36. Re:"Take your time for a thoughtful response" by cwsumner · · Score: 1

      It's not that the gas is too thin for a Bussard Ramjet, that just changes the light-off speed.

      The problem is that sweeping-in the gas creates drag that is proportional to speed, so you get a maximum speed that is too low.

    37. Re:"Take your time for a thoughtful response" by weblolek · · Score: 1

      Everything looks easy as long we thinking theoretically, but question is how we (humanity) will travel that fast without seed enough star ships??

    38. Re:"Take your time for a thoughtful response" by RockDoctor · · Score: 1

      if a Bussard ramjet can't be built, how can you salvage one?

      He didn't say one couldn't be built, only that one wouldn't work. Which is not what the Wikipedia-linked article said as far as I can see - though it does suggest that Bussard's original proton-proton fusion system may not work as a propulsion system. You might build it for some other reason though - not that I can figure out what that reason might be. Maybe you want to wipe part of the sky clean of interfering interstellar hydrogen for your new super-duper telescope?

      --
      Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"
  2. So /. joins the annoying music ads? by Kjella · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Let me just blacklist you in AdBlocker and I'll get back to you. Oh and with regards to the topic, well you'll have to wait a whole lot longer for a suitable planet than any old planet. Unless you got terraforming so under control you can build your own planet it's a lot easier to go where you at least get an earth-like rock to start with.

    --
    Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
    1. Re:So /. joins the annoying music ads? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't ever see ads on Slashdot so I'm curious...was that a Flash ad? Don't you have click-to-play enabled?

    2. Re:So /. joins the annoying music ads? by x_t0ken_407 · · Score: 1

      Slashdot has ads?

  3. 250,000 - 470,000 years to go . . . by mmell · · Score: 0

    Whether or not life still exists or even can exist on Earth that far in the future is an open question. I seem to recall reading somewhere that the Sun will change output significantly enough by then to (potentially) render our planet uninhabitable by life as we currently know it. I suspect intelligent life in other star systems will face a similar test of their patience if this is the method they choose for interstellar travel.

    1. Re:250,000 - 470,000 years to go . . . by DavenH · · Score: 5, Informative

      It won't; you must be thinking 250 - 470 million years.

    2. Re:250,000 - 470,000 years to go . . . by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      470k years is literally nothing on the time-scales required for a significant change in the Sun's energy output. Just for comparison, dinosaurs appeared 232 million years ago, and disappeared 66 million years ago.

    3. Re:250,000 - 470,000 years to go . . . by mpthompson · · Score: 2

      The Earth has several hundred million years, if not much more, of habitable time to for complex life such as humans. The era of the dinosaurs was 300 to 65 million years ago and a few hundred thousand years is just a blink of an eye compared to that kind of time span. It is very doubtful humans showed up on the scene at just at just the instant that conditions on Earth become inhospitable for complex organisms.

      What's more doubtful is whether an advanced culture can survive for such a span of time. Insignificant on goeolgical or evolutionary time scales, it's hundreds of times longer than our modern civilization has been around.

    4. Re:250,000 - 470,000 years to go . . . by gmuslera · · Score: 1

      That the sound changes leaves the main phase will take millons to billons of years. In the other hand, our civilization has been around for 10k years, and in the last 100 we developed (and actually used against ourselves) a lot of technologies that could end mankind or even all life on earth, and with time the opportunities to do it with more severe consequences will be more, not less. I would give more chances that we manage to actually travel 14 light years (with all the complexities involved) than mankind and/or our civilization would last for another 10k years.

    5. Re:250,000 - 470,000 years to go . . . by CaptainDork · · Score: 1

      Extrapolating human longevity based on that of the dinosaurs is vacuous because the mass extinction 65 million years ago was a random catastrophic event.

      --
      It little behooves the best of us to comment on the rest of us.
    6. Re:250,000 - 470,000 years to go . . . by BarbaraHudson · · Score: 1

      470k years is literally nothing on the time-scales required for a significant change in the Sun's energy output. Just for comparison, dinosaurs appeared 232 million years ago, and disappeared 66 million years ago.

      Maybe not, but it's certainly significant on the human time scale. Neanderthals were interbreeding with humans only 50,000 years ago, and only got their start between 200,000 and 300,000 years ago.

      The average human contains between 60 and 200 individual mutations. Who knows what our descendants will be like 470,000 years from now?

      --
      "Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
    7. Re:250,000 - 470,000 years to go . . . by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The Earth has several hundred million years, if not much more, of habitable time to for complex life such as humans.

      Not several, but about a hundred million years before the Sun has entered a phase where the oceans will boil away. I have a hard time believing even non-complex life will live long after that.
      Still a long time, but there is no need to exaggerate.

    8. Re:250,000 - 470,000 years to go . . . by mpthompson · · Score: 1

      I mentioned the era of the dinosaurs to put the time span of a few hundred thousand years in context of actually being fairly brief. I honestly don't know of any data to draw upon to extrapolate whether such a time span is reasonable for a technical civilization. Thus I'm open to hearing other's ideas on the matter.

    9. Re:250,000 - 470,000 years to go . . . by CaptainDork · · Score: 1

      Your basic point is well taken.

      Not all dinosaurs were killed. The tree variety made it.

      So, catastrophic event, or evolution, or technical advances, ... we cannot predict.

      --
      It little behooves the best of us to comment on the rest of us.
    10. Re:250,000 - 470,000 years to go . . . by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      More like approx 2 billion years. Anyway, long enough that neither I nor any of my descendants that even vaguely resemble me will be losing any sleep over it.

    11. Re:250,000 - 470,000 years to go . . . by NotQuiteReal · · Score: 1

      Modern humans are most likely less than 250K years old... Neanderthals went extinct "only" 30K years ago... who knows what will be around in 250K+ years?

      Oh, wait, is this what they call a hypothetical question?

      --
      This issue is a bit more complicated than you think.
    12. Re: 250,000 - 470,000 years to go . . . by symbolset · · Score: 1

      If by random you mean cyclically recurring on a regular schedule. The other kind of random.

      --
      Help stamp out iliturcy.
    13. Re: 250,000 - 470,000 years to go . . . by CaptainDork · · Score: 1

      By random cyclically recurring, do you mean like synchronizing random noise?

      --
      It little behooves the best of us to comment on the rest of us.
    14. Re:250,000 - 470,000 years to go . . . by Grishnakh · · Score: 1

      Neanderthals never really went extinct, they were merely assimilated into modern humans. Most humans (esp. European-ancestry ones) have some Neanderthal DNA in them.

  4. A species that patient isn't going anywhere ever. by Monty845 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Any species that is willing to wait 250,000 years to avoid a 16 LY trip would never get to space at all. A race needs the drive to challenge obstacles and overcome them if its going to make it to space, not look for excuses to not try.

  5. I know huh? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Funny

    Especially since the Earth is only 6000 years old.

  6. What if... human's just weren't cut out for it? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Our life spans are so short compared to the distances and time periods associated, and we're doing such a crappy job with our "solo" space vehicle, Earth...

    If you can survive 3 light years in space, you don't need a planet. That's a long time interval - would we even survive on EARTH that long, as a species? Guess we'll see.

    I think the human race is ill-suited to be "hopping" anywhere there isn't already abundant resources set up for us to exploit, grow fat on, ultimately choke upon or exhaust.

    If we were able to solve all these problems, humans would be so far advanced from where we are now... the idea of hitching rides on random planets to travel will no doubt be obsolete (not to mention, patience-requiring like nothing humanity has ever set out to do since we were simians) and perhaps the paradigm of physically colonizing galaxies will prove itself pointless - what's the end goal, after all?

    1. Re:What if... human's just weren't cut out for it? by CaptainDork · · Score: 3, Interesting

      The end goal is survival.

      --
      It little behooves the best of us to comment on the rest of us.
    2. Re:What if... human's just weren't cut out for it? by AchilleTalon · · Score: 2

      Mod up parent post please. This is the most insightful comment so far on this subject.

      The idea the human kind is destined to colonize the universe is just remanant from protestantism and religious beliefs where God gave the universe to Adam to rule over it, etc. But, at the end, there is just no purpose for universe colonization once we have reached the point we are able to make the journey to a solar system distant from ours by three light-years. We would have reached the point we can sustain life into the void without the Sun's energy for long periods of time and we are able to travel in mass on such a ship (required by the necessity of genetic diversity to survive as a spiece). What else is then needed?

      --
      Achille Talon
      Hop!
    3. Re:What if... human's just weren't cut out for it? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      DNA is DNA. Watch a bacterium. It divides, repeats etc. until it runs out of resources. Absolutely nothing suggests that humans, for all our intellectualism and controversial one child policies, will do anything different. I don't really give a damn either. Nothing of this will affect me or any of my descendents I would recognise. The only consideration is whether the species dies all in one go on this planet, or dies in bits and pieces on a number of planets. Either way, we are not immortal.

    4. Re:What if... human's just weren't cut out for it? by Immerman · · Score: 3, Interesting

      What was the point of colonizing anywhere? A small percentage of the population finds the potential of carving out a new life for themselves in a hostile, untamed environment more appealing than the life they could have where they are. Generally speaking I suspect they're not so much going towards something, as trying to escape the problems in their original home. Be that a shortage of food, uncomfortable population pressure, or oppressive leadership they lack the power to overthrow.

      Keep in mind that our species has been the apex predator on the planet for probably 100,000 to 1,000,000 years, and still hasn't completely colonized the surface. That's a lot of generations where those individuals who hungered to colonize far-off places to populate new lands with their progeny - such wanderlust is likely encoded deep in our genes by now.

      As for traveling 3 light years, I fail to see the problem. So it takes you a few decades or even centuries to cross between stars. So what? Assuming our civilization doesn't collapse in the next century or two we will likely have gotten a pretty good grip on maintaining small-scale closed ecosystems in space. LOTS of readily accessible resources right in our own solar system - plenty of new frontiers for the bold to make their fortunes or try to carve out a life free from oppression. And once we've mastered living in space indefinitely, then getting to another star is just a matter of wanting your independence more than you want to have close neighbors - well, that and gathering enough energy to survive the journey between stars. A generation ship may remove the need for speed, but you've still got to have enough power available keep the lights on for a very long journey.

      As for humanity surviving on Earth - aside from a "grey-goo" scenario, or malevolent AI bent on human extermination, I can't think of anything that would actually present a credible threat to the species. Now lot's of things could bring about the collapse of our civilization, or even *almost* wipe out the species, but even a 99.9% extermination rate would leave 7+ million people - twice the population that is estimated to have existed before the birth of agriculture. Even a 99.9999% extermination rate would leave 7+ thousand people - more than the estimated population during the worst of the last major ice age. And those few survivors would have access to a wealth of knowledge and technology undreamed of by our ancestors - I doubt they'd have trouble eventually rebuilding a new civilization, at worst it might take a few thousand years - and we've been tool-makers for over a million already.

      --
      --- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
    5. Re:What if... human's just weren't cut out for it? by Theaetetus · · Score: 2

      But, at the end, there is just no purpose for universe colonization once we have reached the point we are able to make the journey to a solar system distant from ours by three light-years. We would have reached the point we can sustain life into the void without the Sun's energy for long periods of time and we are able to travel in mass on such a ship (required by the necessity of genetic diversity to survive as a spiece). What else is then needed?

      Resources. Sustaining life for long periods of time without the Sun's energy merely requires a good energy storage system - for example, batteries that power a flashlight at night. At some point, you need fresh batteries - or fuel for your reactors, heavy metals for manufacturing, etc.

    6. Re:What if... human's just weren't cut out for it? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well thank you for the mod support.

      "at the end, there is just no purpose for universe colonization once we have reached the point we are able to make the journey to a solar system distant from ours by three light-years. We would have reached the point we can sustain life into the void without the Sun's energy for long periods of time and we are able to travel in mass on such a ship"

      Exactly. Exactly right - and why wouldn't we be sending robot probes anyway? We could manufacture millions of them and send them out in every direction if we really wanted to map everything out and find all the resources in the galaxy for whatever reason.

      If we're already that powerful, we're going to waste our time setting up shopping malls along the way or what?

    7. Re:What if... human's just weren't cut out for it? by Dutch+Gun · · Score: 1

      I disagree. I believe this stems from an innate desire both to explore and to propagate our own kind. These are both powerful evolutionary drives, not something implanted into us via religion. I'm betting you can find plenty of atheists and agnostics who would like to see humankind survive and prosper out in the larger universe.

      Whether you feel this is a good idea or not is largely a philosophical debate. The universe likely doesn't care one way or another. As such, my feeling is that we might as well then do what's best for humanity, and having backups of your critical data is always a good idea.

      --
      Irony: Agile development has too much intertia to be abandoned now.
    8. Re:What if... human's just weren't cut out for it? by ultranova · · Score: 1

      perhaps the paradigm of physically colonizing galaxies will prove itself pointless - what's the end goal, after all?

      Cultures are more useful than dead rocks. Even if interstellar trade in physical products turns out to be infeasible, the constant stream of exotic entertainment from neighboring systems would be well worth it.

      --

      Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.

    9. Re:What if... human's just weren't cut out for it? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A generation ship may remove the need for speed, but you've still got to have enough power available keep the lights on for a very long journey.

      Conversely, it only has to work once every quarter-million years or so. If you can maintain a space presence for longer than many species exist, you've probably got a pretty good handle on genetic engineering and/or controlling geneic drift. I can envision a really long-lived civilization (one that is content to huddle around its star for energy, but which can't pack enough energy into a generation ship for a 100,000-year trip) just idling away the eons, waiting for passing energy sources to hop over to. Sorta like fleas hopping from dog to dog. Every few hundred thousand years, a few million lifeforms take a 1000-year hop to the next star, slide down another gravity well, and drift off to repeat the process. It's not like they don't have plenty of time to study the next star system as it approaches and make an educated guess as to whether it's worth jumping ship for. Blue hypergiants are not an option. Red dwarfs with lots of rocky stuff, might be worth leaving a yellow G-class star for. Red dwarfs with little metallicity, probably not so much.

    10. Re:What if... human's just weren't cut out for it? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Considering the universe will die, that goal is impossible to attain.

    11. Re:What if... human's just weren't cut out for it? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The assumption many are making, is that we're going to be star-hopping to find habitable planets... Planets are expensive and risky to get onto and off of. Thousands of years of terraforming might turn a lethal wasteland into a just-livable hell, but feck that! The Moon and Mars are useless to us as homes, unless you want the human race to become pale weaklings living in tunnels like morlocks. More likely, we'll be living in millions of orbital colonies cemented together from the remains of all of the space rocks and moons we'll have mined. Spacious, warm, bright and totally environmentally-controlled to our needs and comfort. We don't need, nor will we desire, Earth-like planets trillions of miles away. We could still be living in the Solar system long after the Sun swells up; just farther out, or in better-shielded colonies. If we are really forced to move on, even the nearby red dwarfs will be fine, as long as there are rocks to live off of. When the Sun swells up, it may actually fragment a number of planets, providing us with even more easily-obtained material for colony making right here at home.

      Furthermore, waiting for nearby stars to wander close to us, then taking relatively shorter (but still multi-generation-long trips) to travel there, followed by thousands more years of terraforming, is equivalent to waiting for the continents to drift together and for a series of nice dry caves to open up for us before we set out and migrate across the Earth. We're not plants, we're highly-adaptable people!

    12. Re:What if... human's just weren't cut out for it? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Um, then all you need is a powerful transmitter and sensitive receiver... no point in physically going anywhere. Unless the whole point of this exercise is to indulge in cartoon fantasies of sci-fi starships that will never exist, ever.

    13. Re:What if... human's just weren't cut out for it? by Immerman · · Score: 2

      Somehow I suspect that any civilization capable of sustaining a presence in space for hundreds of thousands of years has probably harnessed at least fission, and probably fusion - either of which should be more than capable of providing power to a colony ship for a paltry few thousand years in interstellar space.

      Now, moving an entire *civilization* is a different thing. In that case you might be better off considering taking your entire planet with you. A little stellar engineering a million years in advance and you can nudge that red dwarf into plunging right though your star system, allowing you to easily transfer any planets and other habitats to the new, far more navigable and essentially immortal star. You could then proceed to nudge your new star to skim other star systems for either colonization or to grab a few extra planets to decorate your new home

      --
      --- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
    14. Re:What if... human's just weren't cut out for it? by swb · · Score: 1

      As much as I believe there is value in manned space flight, I'm increasingly convinced that the real key to long term space flight is the ability to migrate human consciousness into machine form. It makes the ship less complex and solves a lot of problems with traveling long distances and some of the social and psychological side effects of relativistic effects.

    15. Re:What if... human's just weren't cut out for it? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The end goal is survival FOR MY KIDS. Arguably also for those genetically related to me. As far as evolution is concerned, the rest can go hang.

      Makes a difference between a human being and an animal, there.

      AC

    16. Re:What if... human's just weren't cut out for it? by ElderKorean · · Score: 1

      As for humanity surviving on Earth - aside from a "grey-goo" scenario, or malevolent AI bent on human extermination, I can't think of anything that would actually present a credible threat to the species. Now lot's of things could bring about the collapse of our civilization, or even *almost* wipe out the species, but even a 99.9% extermination rate would leave 7+ million people - twice the population that is estimated to have existed before the birth of agriculture. Even a 99.9999% extermination rate would leave 7+ thousand people - more than the estimated population during the worst of the last major ice age. And those few survivors would have access to a wealth of knowledge and technology undreamed of by our ancestors - I doubt they'd have trouble eventually rebuilding a new civilization, at worst it might take a few thousand years - and we've been tool-makers for over a million already.

      The biggest problem that people starting to rebuild civilisation after most of us have been wiped out - is going to be energy sources, then metals.

      All of the easy to get to coal, oil and metals have been strip mined and basically used up - the really hard to get to stuff (which they won't be able to get to) is going to be all that remains.

      The coal and oil could eventually be replenished, but only in geological timescales (and favourable conditions)

      I suspect they'll be a stone-age people until a passing UFO checks out the world that suddenly went quiet.

    17. Re:What if... human's just weren't cut out for it? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Jesus Christ. Read less science fiction, you're just repeating all that horseshit as if it were the truth.

    18. Re:What if... human's just weren't cut out for it? by ultranova · · Score: 1

      Um, then all you need is a powerful transmitter and sensitive receiver... no point in physically going anywhere.

      And point them where? The entire known universe is made of dead rocks, Anon. So either we wait for life to re-evolve elsewhere, or go colonize. And we've never been a patient lot.

      Unless the whole point of this exercise is to indulge in cartoon fantasies of sci-fi starships that will never exist, ever.

      Spaceships currently exist. Perhaps ones matching a given specification will one day, perhaps they won't. Who can know? Not you; even if you were correct, it would be due to lucky guess.

      --

      Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.

    19. Re:What if... human's just weren't cut out for it? by Immerman · · Score: 1

      Actually, metals should be easy - it's not like it gets used up. Our landfills and abandoned cities will be chock full of metals and other resources far purer and more accessible than any ore.

      Energy I don't think will be an issue unless we lose our technology. If we were knocked back to the stone age, or even iron age, then yes, we might have some serious challenges - though even then I suspect there would be plenty of accessible remnants in existing coal mines that weren't worth extracting in the face of the volumes needed by modern civilization, but would be more than sufficient for a small city-state for a very long time. There's also land fills to think about - chock full of plastic - aka solid, stabilized oil. We discard tens of millions of tons of it every year - that's an enormous stockpile of energy just waiting for a future civilization to mine. Plus it's actually relatively easy to convert biomass to much hotter- and cleaner-burning fuel as well, using only very primitive technology. The knowledge is actually spreading in poverty-stricken regions around the world as we speak. Not realistic to power a civilization of billions, but millions? No problem.

        Our civilization relies on fossil fuels not because they're the only option, but because they're more convenient and profitable than the alternatives. But providing 1/4 of the current per-capita energy budget via biomass is unlikely to be a problem - and if we don't lose all our knowledge about how to use it efficiently that will be more than enough to provide for a very comfortable life with plenty of excess energy budget to keep things advancing. Maybe not nearly as fast as the last time around, but one could argue that would be a good thing - our headlong rush has certainly created no end of major problems.

      But I don't think us losing our technology is terribly realistic - maybe if we were reduced to a few thousand individuals, but even then, at least some of those individuals would likely have the presence of mind and technological knowledge to scavenge stockpiles of solar panels, etc. to provide power for the first several decades at least, and I imagine within a decade or so the isolated groups would have mostly established both a comfortable life and radio contact with each other - shortwave can travel clear around the world - and the technologically inclined would have begun sharing knowledge to salvage and rebuild technology to make their lives more comfortable and interesting. We're geeks - it's what we do.

      And if there were millions left - I think it's a pretty good bet that we would have the human resources available to salvage things like nuclear power, advanced robotics, etc. At the very least I suspect we'd salvage the science behind it and a fair bit of the practical knowledge. Maybe even the source code. It might be a few generations before we rebuilt, but the knowledge would be sitting, waiting for it's opportunity to shine - we would be able to largely leapfrog much of the crude, inefficient technology that forms, through social inertia, the foundation of modern society.

      --
      --- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
    20. Re:What if... human's just weren't cut out for it? by Immerman · · Score: 1

      Fact 1: We already live in a closed ecosystem - just one so large that we treated it as infinite, and are now just beginning to slam hard into it's limits. If we're to survive as a civilization on this planet we're absolutely going to need to improve our understanding of ecosystem engineering dramatically just to have some hope of correcting the damage we've already done. Biosphere 2 was already an immense success for a first attempt - making such things larger and more reliable is only a question of incremental improvements and motive. And with the complementary* interests in colonizing space and avoiding ecosystem collapse on Earth, we should have plenty of motive. (*Consider that every attempt at a sustainable space colony will be an experimental testbed for the same basic ecosystem science that will help us keep our world lush enough to continue to support billions of people.)

      Fact 2: Once we have mastered creating long-term stable closed ecosystems, traveling to another star is just a matter of motive. If you're willing to take many centuries to make the journey, propulsion is a non-issue.

      And I think most everything else I said is historical. So what's your complaint?

      --
      --- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
    21. Re:What if... human's just weren't cut out for it? by dinfinity · · Score: 1

      There can be no end goal.

      1. The concept 'goal' requires the concept of time (or: transitioning between states) and the concept of objective desirability, as it defines a set of reachable states that are more desirable than other states (more fully: an ordering of states). Both are, to me, not fundamental but emergent elements of the universe.
      2. The target state(s) are necessarily goalless (or they wouldn't be the most desirable, that is, unless you allow the 'end' goal to change between states).

      Let me put it like this:
      Suppose there is a big red button hidden in the desert somewhere and that pushing it is the end goal. Suppose we find it and push it.
      Then what?

      Push it again? Game over, thanks for playing? Cop-out 'transcendence' to next level with new 'end' goal? Transcendence to next goalless level in which things just happen for no reason and all states are equally desirable?

      Don't get me wrong: we can still have subjective temporary goals. Just no 'end' goal.

    22. Re:What if... human's just weren't cut out for it? by CaptainDork · · Score: 1

      Survival is avoiding the ending of the goal.

      --
      It little behooves the best of us to comment on the rest of us.
    23. Re:What if... human's just weren't cut out for it? by dinfinity · · Score: 1

      Oneliners can be very insightful or completely ridiculous.

    24. Re:What if... human's just weren't cut out for it? by CaptainDork · · Score: 1

      You'll get better.

      --
      It little behooves the best of us to comment on the rest of us.
    25. Re:What if... human's just weren't cut out for it? by dinfinity · · Score: 1

      How cunning.
      What's next? 'Your mom'-retorts?

    26. Re:What if... human's just weren't cut out for it? by khallow · · Score: 1

      If we're to survive as a civilization on this planet we're absolutely going to need to improve our understanding of ecosystem engineering dramatically just to have some hope of correcting the damage we've already done.

      I see no evidence that we don't already have most of what we need for adequate ecosystem engineering on Earth. The big knowledge gap seems to be climate modeling.

      Space-side ecosystems are a whole different matter.

    27. Re:What if... human's just weren't cut out for it? by CaptainDork · · Score: 1

      What's next, apparently, is you go for twoliners.

      --
      It little behooves the best of us to comment on the rest of us.
    28. Re:What if... human's just weren't cut out for it? by tehcyder · · Score: 1

      As much as I believe there is value in manned space flight, I'm increasingly convinced that the real key to long term space flight is the ability to migrate human consciousness into machine form. It makes the ship less complex and solves a lot of problems with traveling long distances and some of the social and psychological side effects of relativistic effects.

      Luckily, we'll be able to do this in less than twenty years' time. Just ask the AI experts here: it's practically a done deal already, with a few minor engineering tweaks needed.

      As any fule kno, the human brain is just a moderately complicated binary computer.

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
  7. The financial math isn't any easier... by __aaclcg7560 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I very much doubt that NASA's budgets will get any better over the next 450,000 years.

    1. Re:The financial math isn't any easier... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I very much doubt that you wil ever understand the true purpose of wealth.

    2. Re:The financial math isn't any easier... by __aaclcg7560 · · Score: 1

      I very much doubt that you will ever understand the point I was trying to make.

    3. Re: The financial math isn't any easier... by symbolset · · Score: 1

      NASA money is just the kickstarter for the entrepreneurs who will own the asteroids, moons and eventually the stars. The entire Earth is but a grain of sand on an endless shore.

      --
      Help stamp out iliturcy.
    4. Re:The financial math isn't any easier... by penguinoid · · Score: 1

      That sounds like enough time to make a finger-sized colony ship using nano or biotechnology. At that point we could use something like a railgun to accelerate the ship and give it a gram of antimatter for the deceleration run. Failing that, we could make a citylike nuclear (or better fusion*) powered spaceship so travel times are not limited to one generation.

      * A fusion-powered spaceship is one of the best type because venting the hydrogen plasma at fusion temperatures makes for a super-efficient engine. This would even be the case if we had to take a fission reactor to power it.

      --
      Don't waste your vote! Vote for whoever you want, unless you live in a swing state it won't matter anyways
  8. You're right. by mmell · · Score: 2

    I seem to have slipped a digit or two . . .

  9. Passing Stars by shugah · · Score: 4, Funny

    Virgin Galactic is taking deposits for reservations now.

    --
    If you aren't part of the solution, then there is good money to be made prolonging the problem
    1. Re:Passing Stars by tehcyder · · Score: 1

      Virgin Galactic is taking deposits for reservations now.

      And half of slashdot is now desperately searching Virgin's website for details, you cruel bastard.

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
  10. Impractical for Civilizations. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    This seem to be a impractical and unlikely way for civilization to spread. You have to have a civilization to spread at the same time as the star (with a habitable planet) happen to be that close. (And thats habitable too an civilization that could travel to oort cloud distances.)

    But in geological time frames it might be a way for (carbon based) life to spread. A star coming close would mess things up and spread asteroids and dirt everywhere, Some of them carrying the "seeds" of life. With the numbers of stars in our galaxy and the time frames involved ot kind of have to happen at some point/time in our galaxy.

  11. as close as the Oort cloud? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Screw thinking about hitching a ride. The Oort cloud is too damn close. Am more worried about the huge gravitational forces of a star coming that close disrupting planetary orbits. Won't the orbit of the earth to be altered to a noticeable extent. Talk about climate changing events. I realize the Oort cloud is far out there in human scale but on a star system scale it's relatively close, hell Sedna orbits out past it and the sun has enough gravity to pull it back in. Does anyone know what the expected outcome of such a close flyby would be?
    Am guessing the Oort cloud will be no more. But will we loose or gain planets, etc. My astrology forecast depends on this information.

    1. Re:as close as the Oort cloud? by mpthompson · · Score: 2

      In 4.5 billion years the solar system has doubtlessly survived many such stellar encounters while keeping the planets in relatively stable orbits. Such encounters may dislodge an unusual number of comets that then rain down on the inner solar system (potentially causing other problems), but the chance of an encounter disrupting planetary orbits is almost negligible. Space is really that large.

    2. Re:as close as the Oort cloud? by Immerman · · Score: 1

      The Oort cloud is theorized to extend out as far as several light years, and a light year is a few thousand times the orbital radius of Neptune, or ~63,000x the orbit of Earth. At those distances the gravitational effects of the star will still be virtually uniform within the solar system, so any disruption should be incredibly small - it's the tidal disruptions of traveling through a varying gravitational field that wreak havoc. Consider: When Neptune is at it's closest to a hypothetical star 1 light year away from our sun the "alien" gravitational acceleration will be proportional to 1/(1-0.00048)^2 = 1.000960692, while at it's furthest it will be proportional to 1/(1+0.00048)^2 = 0.999040691, a difference of about 0.2%. The outer planets may be gradually dragged into somewhat more eccentric orbits, but it's unlikely catastrophe will ensue.

      On the other hand orbital catastrophe would likely be quite common in the Oort cloud, where objects will "suddenly" find themselves closer to another star than they are to the sun. I suspect most such objects would probably be thrown off into interstellar space, or into the alien star system, but of course there's the *other* star's Oort-cloud to worry about as well - if the star is passing through our Oort cloud, it seems reasonable to assume that we'd be passing through its as well - and that's an awful lot of alien rock raining down into the inner system. Planetary orbits might not be much affected, but it might be a bad couple tens of thousands of years for anyone who likes not having giant rocks dropped on their head.

      --
      --- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
  12. Artifical Spaceship. by ebacon · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Dunno. I think a real spaceship might be more practical.

    1. Re:Artifical Spaceship. by gmuslera · · Score: 1

      If we can make habitats on big enough asteroids and deviate them from their orbits toward those star systems, they could be considered natural spaceships.

    2. Re:Artifical Spaceship. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you can make a habitable asteroid and push it that far out of Sol's gravity well I doubt you give a damn about any passing stars. Just set a course for \tau Ceti, chillax in the stasis pods for a few kiloyears and be done with it.

    3. Re:Artifical Spaceship. by Immerman · · Score: 1

      I think you lost your argument at "If we can make...". If it's made, it's an artifact - and thus artificial. And without the made part it's just a rock, not a spaceship.

      --
      --- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
    4. Re:Artifical Spaceship. by Sarius64 · · Score: 1
    5. Re:Artifical Spaceship. by gmuslera · · Score: 1

      What we will build is not the ship, is an habitat over it. We could say that Earth (or our solar system) is our spaceship now, and no matter how much buildings we have on it, it is natural. What turns it into a ship is that we build it piece by piece or that it bring us to a destination?

    6. Re:Artifical Spaceship. by Immerman · · Score: 1

      I would say what turn it into a ship is that we can survive on it a it travels. (Or in it as the case may be - it would be rather silly to build much on the surface of an asteroid). Reaching a destination is perhaps the goal, but I wouldn't consider that an integral part of being a ship.

      You tell me - is a dugout canoe a natural or artificial boat? Seems very much like an artifact to me, despite the fact that it started as a completely natural tree and was modified only by removing the parts that weren't a boat. An asteroid is just a rock until we modify it to become a ship - the fact that we don't have to work the surface to make it viable is immaterial. Using a grossly oversized asteroid changes nothing, it's just a really stupid and wasteful ship design unless you're planning to do most of the construction en-route. Which might not be a bad idea actually - spending multiple generations in an steady-state habitat would probably not be conductive to fostering an appropriate temperament among the would-be colonists.

      --
      --- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
    7. Re:Artifical Spaceship. by HiThere · · Score: 1

      If you mean FTL, that's probably impossible. If it weren't I'd expect that someone would have shown up around here.

      If you mean a generation ship, well, sort of. The problem is that by the time people get to the destination they won't be interested in living planetside.

      The reasonable alternative is a "colony ship", where the ship itself is the colony. You don't need, or want, high speed, since your desire is to be moving just slightly differently than the "free planets" around. You depend on encountering them occasionally for resources. This probably requires controlled fusion reactors, but might possibly be doable with fission. And you'll need a fairly large colony, because it needs to be a self sufficient population capable of maintaining a civilization. (If they lose it they're probably dead.) They aren't planning on a destination. They only "land" in case of severe problems that aren't too bad for them to reach a "habitable" planet (where habitable may include using extensive technology). What star systems are usually good for is reproducing. (Think of this colony as a form of MacroLife. Thank you George Zebrowski.)

      FWIW, I generally envision these colonies evolving out of mining colonies out in the Oort clouds getting into some kind of disagreement with the folk back home, and just leaving. That lets all the pieces be checked out ahead of time. I'm sure, however, that there are other possibilities, with religious differences being near the top.

      --

      I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
    8. Re:Artifical Spaceship. by Bite+The+Pillow · · Score: 1

      How the fuck is this Insightful? Are people really going to just sit on FTL travel and wait for an astronomical body to float by instead?

      Of FUCKING COURSE a spaceship might be more practical. But what if it isn't possible? Then the article makes sense. And it's real and practical, whereas FTL travel is not.

    9. Re:Artifical Spaceship. by tehcyder · · Score: 1

      If you mean FTL, that's probably impossible. If it weren't I'd expect that someone would have shown up around here.

      The standard space-barm answer to this is that while (obviously) you can travel FTL, you can't have too high a velocity, because that would be unrealistic. Or something.

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
  13. A thoughtful response.... by thegarbz · · Score: 0

    First Post.

  14. Why? by Dereck1701 · · Score: 2

    If you've got the technology to make a 3 light year journey you're not going to wait hundreds of thousands of years when you could make the 16 ly trip in a fraction of the time. Even with current technology we could theoretically make a 16 ly journey in somewhere around 1,000 years.

    1. Re:Why? by CrimsonAvenger · · Score: 2

      Note that this particular star is going to pass a bit over ONE lightyear away, not three.

      On the other hand, 0.03c makes the 16 ly trip in less than 600 years. As opposed to a quarter million years.

      On the gripping hand, it's useful to keep in mind that those stars are moving relative to us, and that over long enough timescales, our skies aren't going to be constant....

      --

      "I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
    2. Re:Why? by xaotikdesigns · · Score: 1

      Well, the 16LY journey would take over 5 times the fuel and time. Just because you can make one journey, it doesn't mean you can always make the longer one.

      --
      XDInd
    3. Re:Why? by kesuki · · Score: 1

      you're missing the highly necessary radiation and impact shielding. a sufficiently robotic civilization could send machines, but machines can't survive radiation either. their bits could flip, and cause a blue screen or a kernel panic. if you only shield the machines then you need only impact cushions of some sort, and there isn't a better material than layered graphene crystals which cost an order of magnitude higher cost than any other material and is currently so brittle a hand shake could destroy it

    4. Re:Why? by TrekkieGod · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Even with current technology we could theoretically make a 16 ly journey in somewhere around 1,000 years.

      No, we couldn't. We don't have the technology right now to build a multi-generational ship. We don't even have the technology right now to send an unmanned probe that would still be powered by the time it got there. We don't even have the technology right now to build an unmanned probe that would shut itself down and bring itself back up after 1000 years. Hell, it's hard to find a motherboard from the 80's that doesn't need capacitors replaced before it can be booted up again.

      Who knows what kind of technology we'll have in 300,000 years, though. And the closest the destination, the more likely something can actually get there.

      --

      Warning: Opinions known to be heavily biased.

    5. Re:Why? by lister+king+of+smeg · · Score: 1

      Even with current technology we could theoretically make a 16 ly journey in somewhere around 1,000 years.

      No, we couldn't. We don't have the technology right now to build a multi-generational ship. We don't even have the technology right now to send an unmanned probe that would still be powered by the time it got there. We don't even have the technology right now to build an unmanned probe that would shut itself down and bring itself back up after 1000 years. Hell, it's hard to find a motherboard from the 80's that doesn't need capacitors replaced before it can be booted up again.

      Who knows what kind of technology we'll have in 300,000 years, though. And the closest the destination, the more likely something can actually get there.

      We probably could but it might take devoting the entire worlds GDP for a decade or so and there is noway that would happen. We need the technological advances so that it would approach affordability.

      --
      ---Saying gnome 3 is better than windows 8 not so much a compliment as it is damning with light praise.
    6. Re:Why? by rtb61 · · Score: 2

      That depends upon whether you spaceship is say an inside out engine. With an energy field generated around it to gather particles from in front of the ship and accelerate them around and past the ship to move the ship in the desired direction and that field to even be used to generate an attraction and or rotation within the ship to simulate gravity. A large colony like ship where the population only leaves to visit other places rather than remain. Of course one on their own does leave them exposed in the event of critical failure so more likely a fleet, one that is capable of stopping within astronomical formations as a supply of raw materials to build additional ships. You could spread across the galaxy and only visit worlds to explore and understand them but have no desire to live primitively upon a their chaotic surface, of course their will always be a few who wish to end their time on those worlds in a more primitive wild state but not leave a permanent visible presence. If you are willing to spend a very long time on a star ship why the expectation that you would want to leave it, likely you will prefer to remain there and seriously shouldn't those kind of people be the persons chosen to participate.

      --
      Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
    7. Re:Why? by rubycodez · · Score: 1

      No, same amount of fuel, 5x the time. If you can make the one journey and live enough (or support descendants), you can make the longer one. spaceships don't stop when you turn the engine off

    8. Re:Why? by Dereck1701 · · Score: 1

      You're half correct, it would take several times as long, but this is space travel, you don't need several times the fuel. The smaller Orion designs only have the craft accelerating for about 10 days. Any craft that can last a hundred years is in all likelihood going to have all of the capacities (long term energy source, on-board fabrication of replacement parts, crew replacement, etc) to last much longer with only moderate modifications. No doubt that the level of danger increases with the distance, but if a civilization is willing to wait several hundred thousand years to send an expedition to another star system I doubt some extra risk to send an expedition now with a longer trip is going to make them even bat an eye.

    9. Re: Why? by xaotikdesigns · · Score: 2

      Sorry? Replace fuel with resources. There will still be items that cannot be recycled, possibly including food.

      --
      XDInd
    10. Re: Why? by rubycodez · · Score: 1

      perhaps algae can be farmed from waste and CO2. Keeping the lights on and keeping warm should be a very small amount of energy compared to the amount getting to even five percent of lightspeed would take

    11. Re:Why? by Immerman · · Score: 1

      Umm, no - you would presumably be coasting most of the way. In which case a journey 5x the distance at would take 5x as long with exactly the same amount of fuel. Or the same amount of time with roughly 25x the fuel (5x the speed = 25x the kinetic energy, and I'm assuming a propulsion system where fuel mass is a negligible fraction of the total vehicle mass).

      Or with 5x the fuel (= kinetic energy for simplicity) you'd be traveling at ~2.24x the speed, and thus cover 5x the distance in 2.24x the time.

      And I think the point was - assuming we're not getting to a significant fraction of light speed we're going to need a generation/sleeper ship anyway, in which case there's not a whole lot to be gained by waiting until the trip is a few light years shorter.

      --
      --- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
    12. Re:Why? by xaotikdesigns · · Score: 1
      Yeah, caught that right after I posted it. I meant "resources" not just fuel. You'll need five times the medicine. Five times the food. Five times the raw materials. You'll have to replace all the things that wear out that aren't easily recyclable. How many jump suits will people need for the journey? Even things like screw drivers will need to be replaced. You can 3D print stuff, but you'll need a lot more of the material for the 16ly trip.

      It's nice to say that we'll have the technology to magic all that stuff up on the ship, but if we're going to play that game, then why not just use our Infinite Improbability Drive to just get to the destination instantly?

      --
      XDInd
    13. Re:Why? by TrekkieGod · · Score: 1

      We probably could but it might take devoting the entire worlds GDP for a decade or so and there is noway that would happen. We need the technological advances so that it would approach affordability.

      I agree with you that there's a lot we could accomplish if we were willing to spend the money, but I honestly think we're still at the stage where this is a technology problem, not a resources one. I don't think we can build electronics that could function for 1,000 years, so I definitely don't think we have a system that can keep life support active for humans in a generational ship for 1,000 years...right now we're seriously questioning our capability of shielding astronauts from radiation on a trip to Mars. Resource-wise, we have extremely efficient methods for recycling water and air on the ISS, but our best still requires resupply missions with both of those resources. We've tried experiments like Biosphere 2 to run a fully self-contained environment only to see CO2 levels fluctuate and oxygen levels drop dramatically to the point they had to start pumping oxygen in out of concern for the researchers inside. Many species sealed in started dying off outright, except for things like ants and cockroaches which actually thrived, because cockroaches thrive anywhere. This wasn't a case of not having enough money to do it right, they did everything they thought was necessary to keep the place completely sealed...we just learned during the research process about a lot of things that weren't accounted for.

      Don't get me wrong, I think we'll eventually get there. But I think right now if we discovered this all life on this planet would die off in 100 years and the only hope for humanity was a 100% confirmed habitable planet 16 light-years away and put every single one of our resources for the next 100 years to try to get a generational colony ship built and launched 100 years from today...well, I think our species is done for. We'd launch something, but everyone aboard would die before they make it as far as Saturn.

      --

      Warning: Opinions known to be heavily biased.

    14. Re:Why? by Kjella · · Score: 1

      No, we couldn't. We don't have the technology right now to build a multi-generational ship. We don't even have the technology right now to send an unmanned probe that would still be powered by the time it got there.

      Actually powered may not be that impossible, they're experimenting with Am241 which has a half-life of 432 years, so even after 1000 years it would have ~20% of its initial power production. Do we have electronics that can last that long? Who knows. Voyager 1 was launched in 1977 and is still running, before Intel had even invented the 8086. I'm sure we can do better today if that's our design goal. It seems likely that if it can withstand ~38 years of interstellar radiation that the shielding and error recovery is pretty good already. Obviously with increased distance we'll also need bigger antennas, but Voyager is expected to run out of power in ~10 years before we lose contact and it was a small 722 kg probe, we could easily make it at least ten times bigger. I expect that for the next "grand tour" in 2148 - no, that's not a typo - we'll launch a deep space mission to reach the Oort cloud which would take something like 300-800 years. Not that we're even close to doing interstellar, but it seems like the natural next step unless we've made some other revolutionary breakthroughs.

      --
      Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
    15. Re:Why? by 0111+1110 · · Score: 1

      >Even with current technology we could theoretically make a 16 ly journey in somewhere around 1,000 years.

      If you consider Orion, 1950s tech, to be 'current' then it could be more like 200-300 years. What calculations did you use to get 1000 years anyway? Just asking because I love those sorts of calcs.

      --
      Quite an experience to live in fear, isn't it? That's what it is to be a slave.
    16. Re:Why? by 0111+1110 · · Score: 1

      On the other hand, 0.03c

      0.03c? Are we talking pulsed nukes? Orion?

      --
      Quite an experience to live in fear, isn't it? That's what it is to be a slave.
    17. Re:Why? by itzly · · Score: 1

      I'm assuming a propulsion system where fuel mass is a negligible fraction of the total vehicle mass

      You seem to be forgetting about the propellant. Also, there's the Tsiolkovsky rocket equation. Plus you need the same amount of propellent for slowing down at the destination, which means that propellant mass = C * exp(exp(payload mass)).

    18. Re:Why? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I believe you are referring to a Bussard ramjet, but I'm wondering what mysterious "attraction" you are referring to that would simulate gravity.

    19. Re:Why? by Dereck1701 · · Score: 1

      "What calculations did you use to get 1000 years anyway?"

      I'd always heard 100-150 years for an Orion craft to get to a Alpha Centauri, a lot of those calculations don't include the energy required to slow down for some reason (I think) so I multiplied the estimate by two (200-300 years). Alpha Centauri is about 4.3 ly from us so I divided 16 by 4.3 and multiplied that (3.7) by the 200-300 estimate to come up with 744-1116 years. Of course all of these numbers are probably based on the original 1960s Orion so with modern tech it might very well be possible to bring the time down quite a ways. And with research into more advanced propulsion it might be possible to bring it down even more (spiked fusion, antimatter, Bussard ramjet). But a major design consideration no matter what the technology (unless its some FTL tech) is going to be time. Any materials/technology that you have on board is going to have to be repairable, manufacture-able and recyclable on board. Sure you could make some ships components out of carbon fiber, but you wouldn't be able to replace them so your probably going to use aluminum. Sure you could use top of the line computer processors, but if they fried you'd have to have replacements (and hope age hadn't killed them) so you'll probably go with an older design that can be built on board. Any of these would of course require a massive ship be built, but even that isn't all that improbable, for the likely final cost of SLS alone we could launch the mass of a WWII aircraft carrier into orbit on today's commercial launchers. Times that by 10 and you've reached the mass of a moderate sized Orion (or about the initial cost of the Iraq War).

    20. Re:Why? by Immerman · · Score: 1

      No, in fact that's exactly why I said that - to make clear to any pedants that I was assuming an advanced technology that largely sidesteps the complications of non-linear propellant requirements*. Not clear enough apparently... I suppose I should have said "propellant" rather than "fuel".

      *high-energy ion drives perhaps? If your exhaust leaves at 0.999999c it doesn't need a whole lot of rest mass.

      --
      --- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
    21. Re:Why? by itzly · · Score: 1

      If your exhaust leaves at 0.999999c it doesn't need a whole lot of rest mass.

      Doesn't matter. Mass is mass. You can take 1 gram of propellant, and accelerate it until it has 1 kg relativistic mass, but that requires conversion of 1 kg of fuel mass -> energy. In that case, you might as well have used the fuel itself as propellant.

    22. Re:Why? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Even with current technology we could theoretically make a 16 ly journey in somewhere around 1,000 years.

      No, we couldn't. We don't have the technology right now to build a multi-generational ship. We don't even have the technology right now to send an unmanned probe that would still be powered by the time it got there. We don't even have the technology right now to build an unmanned probe that would shut itself down and bring itself back up after 1000 years. Hell, it's hard to find a motherboard from the 80's that doesn't need capacitors replaced before it can be booted up again.

      Who knows what kind of technology we'll have in 300,000 years, though. And the closest the destination, the more likely something can actually get there.

      I have a Tandy 1000 ex that still boots from 1986. Perhaps you need to do some research before you plan on posting. btw we can build the Tech for a multi-generational ship in 20 to 30 years give or take. What we don't have is the political will to do so.

    23. Re:Why? by tinkerton · · Score: 1

      If you can provide external propulsion (some kind of laser thing or whatever) it would make a large difference. Then you just need to brake. So
      - step one: mission with unmanned replicating robots that starts with external propulsion, takes an awful long time to get there
      - it brakes by itself.
      - it builds a braking system
      - a manned mission is sent with external launching and braking.
      - profit

    24. Re:Why? by Immerman · · Score: 1

      I think you're probably right - but that's only relevant when comparing thrust systems operating at 100% theoretical efficiency, and we're nowhere remotely near that. If we were there'd be no interest in ion drives.

      Basically, and ignoring relativistic effects, if I can throw that 1g of propellant out the back of my ship 1000x faster than I could throw the 1kg of fuel, then I get the same amount of thrust with 1/1000th the propellant mass. It requires the exact same amount of *energy* either way, but the amount of propellant is reduced dramatically.

      With rocket fuel you convert an infinitesimal fraction of the mass to energy (basically some of the mass of some of the chemical bonds) - so basically 99.9999999%* of the mass is propellant and only the remaining 0.0000001% is converted to energy. With a sufficiently advanced ion drive you can virtually eliminate the propellant mass, allowing you to get the same thrust while consuming only a comparatively infinitesimal amount of fuel. If using antimatter, black holes, or other mass-conversion technology for power you would need only as much fuel mass as was in those chemical bonds.

      * Not bad for a guess, only off by a factor of 2! Chemical energy in a gallon of gasoline (roughly the same as rocket fuel and all other hydrocarbons) is about 50MJ/kg or less, versus the ~90MJ/ug for matter conversion. Which means only 0.00000018% or less of the fuel's mass is converted to energy. Well, more or less - you also gain the energy in the bonds of the O2 that is consumed, and lose the energy in the bonds of the H2O and CO2 byproducts, maybe I'll work out the details some other time.

      Wait, no... Kinetic energy scales with the square of velocity, while momentum only scales linearly, so there would be a sweet spot for propellant velocity, and would require readjusting all my numbers. But I've spent enough time on this - I think the basic argument comes through, even if the details need to be adjusted.

      --
      --- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
    25. Re:Why? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But, what if......we sent another spacecraft with capacitors and tools to replace the stuff in the first one, and another spaceship with capacitors and tools to replace the stuff in the second one, etc? Then we could probably have a long line of spaceships that can just hop-skip-and-jump across to get to the first one?

    26. Re:Why? by tehcyder · · Score: 1

      Who knows what kind of technology we'll have in 300,000 years, though.

      The same stuff that other 300,000 year old civilizations in the Universe have. Which is insufficient for them to travel FTL and contact us.

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
    27. Re:Why? by tehcyder · · Score: 1

      On the gripping hand

      Everyone panic, we have a Motie in our midst!

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
  15. Re:A species that patient isn't going anywhere eve by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Any species that is willing to wait 250,000 years to avoid a 16 LY trip would never get to space at all. A race needs the drive to challenge obstacles and overcome them if its going to make it to space, not look for excuses to not try.

    I assume you're basing this on a sample of zero. I honestly don't know how you can justify making any assumptions about what a race the survives 250,000 years might or might not do.

  16. Re:A species that patient isn't going anywhere eve by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

    Pfft. Work smart, not hard.

  17. Year of the Linux desktop? by by+(1706743) · · Score: 2

    250,000 to 470,000 years in the future...sounds about right.

  18. First post? Really? by CaptainDork · · Score: 1

    by ebacon (16101) Alter Relationship on Friday January 02, 2015 @06:35PM (#48721439)

    by thegarbz (1787294) Alter Relationship on Friday January 02, 2015 @06:35PM (#48721445)

    --
    It little behooves the best of us to comment on the rest of us.
    1. Re:First post? Really? by cablepokerface · · Score: 1

      I think he's joking. As in, he thought about it carefully, and then decided 'first post' was a thoughtful response. Thereby purposely making his comment ironic.

  19. first time submitter by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "stars get closer and further to each other"

    "It will get a close as the Oort cloud"

    First time submitter? Hope it's the last.

  20. cross space by cooperation! by anwyn · · Score: 4, Interesting
    Have a good reputation by practicing ahinsa, and always helping and not hurting the civilizations one visits. Send a copy of your self to other civilizations and get them to build it, giving them detailed instructions. (Use error correcting codes for the instructions.) In return perform same service for others with good reputations! Using this method one can cross space at the speed of light or better. You can cross space at the speed a message can travel.

    If you hurt anyone your reputation will be damaged and with it the ability to travel.

    1. Re:cross space by cooperation! by Paul+Fernhout · · Score: 2

      Mod parent up -- great point! Some sci-fi books have explored this theme, with both bad and good results. Two examples:
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A...
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T...

      Anyone know more?

      --
      A 21st century issue: the irony of technologies of abundance in the hands of those still thinking in terms of scarcity.
    2. Re:cross space by cooperation! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you hurt anyone your reputation will be damaged and with it the ability to travel.

      And what about trojan horses - a species silently infested with another species? What if the fundamental character of a race is apt too change suddenly and become warlike - rather like humans often do in fact?

    3. Re:cross space by cooperation! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Have a good reputation by practicing ahinsa, and always helping and not hurting the civilizations one visits. Send a copy of your self to other civilizations and get them to build it, giving them detailed instructions. (Use error correcting codes for the instructions.) In return perform same service for others with good reputations! Using this method one can cross space at the speed of light or better. You can cross space at the speed a message can travel.

      If you hurt anyone your reputation will be damaged and with it the ability to travel.

      Great idea, except it wouldn't be "myself" they would be building, only a copy. My physical consciousness will still be stuck wherever my born body is. Consciousness experiences abstractions, it is not itself an abstraction it is physical. For instance, I can experience the number 1, but the number 1 cannot experience the number one or two or anything at all.

    4. Re:cross space by cooperation! by Nethead · · Score: 1

      David Brin's Existence is another very interesting take on the subject.

      http://www.amazon.com/Existenc...

      --
      -- I have a private email server in my basement.
    5. Re:cross space by cooperation! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The book "Enchantress from the Stars" made quite a mark on me as an adolescent, espousing the principals of non interference between interstellar civilizations. It also seeded in my brain that religious experiences may be explained by technology.
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enchantress_from_the_Stars
      was the runner up for Newbery Medal in 1971 evidently

      =D

    6. Re:cross space by cooperation! by Paul+Fernhout · · Score: 1

      Thanks! I did not know about that David Brin's "Existence" work: "From a tribe of beleaguered dolphins to the highest mountain observatory, Existence asks the question: Are we alone in the universe? Does every bright new race stumble over the same pitfalls? The same, entrapping seven hundred ways to fail? Thrown into this maelstrom of worldwide shared experience and tension over human destiny, the Artifact is a game changer. A message in a bottle, an alien capsule that wants to communicate ... but for good or ill? The world reacts as humans always do: with fear and hope and selfishness and love and violence. And insatiable curiosity."

      Interesting idea: "Does every bright new race stumble over the same pitfalls? The same, entrapping seven hundred ways to fail?" I guess we can wonder about the overall indifference, malevolence, or benevolence of the universe (same as some eternal religious questions).

      BTW, bacteria may be the most universal message. It looks like they may perhaps be hardy enough to cross light years of space while dormant, especially if embedded in some debris bounced into space from a meteor or asteroid striking a planet. As an example, there may be some meteorites of Martian origin that have fallen to earth; so imagine that on a galactic scale. Neverness is a sci-fi novel where there is some message embedded in DNA. Star Trek has that theme in one episode as well (explaining why almost all aliens look human-like). So, there may be some message already here in the bacterio-sphere. Maybe we're it? :-)

      --
      A 21st century issue: the irony of technologies of abundance in the hands of those still thinking in terms of scarcity.
  21. Re:Based on the track record of Homo Sapiens Sapie by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I imagine our descendants in that amount of time will live underground, but otherwise seem to be like the "society" in Mad Max. They will be the last remnants of us, and will try to kill even that.

  22. well by hamburger+lady · · Score: 3, Interesting

    i would think that if another star decided to get close enough to perturb the oort cloud, we may have other issues to deal with.

    --

    ---
    Is this the MPAA? Is this the RIAA? Is this the DMCA? I thought it was the USA!
    1. Re:well by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      i would think that if another star decided to get close enough to perturb the oort cloud, we may have other issues to deal with.

      What, like sentient stars? Yeah, I would imagine that could cause some issues. Who knows what kinds of havoc they might decide to wreak?

      "That's no star.....It's a space station!"

    2. Re:well by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I thought so, too. But it's not really a star it's a brown dwarf. If it where a star like our sun it would be a problem for both of us.

    3. Re:well by confused+one · · Score: 1
      This is understated and under-represented in the discussion. If you wait for a star to pass through the Oort cloud, before you go exploring, you're waiting too long. The star will disturb objects in the Oort cloud, some of which will begin to slowly fall inward. Probability of a new extinction level meteor impact would go up considerably. from the article:

      By some estimates, Gliese 710’s passing will cause as many as 2.4 million comets to move into Earth-crossing orbits. As noted in my book “Distant Wanderers,” these comets will only gradually arrive in our vicinity over a period of some two million years.

      So, not an immediate threat; but, a threat non-the-less.

  23. IF i left now by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    would i get there before the 250,000 years it takes to get earth a bit closer?

  24. Re: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Yes, but three lightyears is not "near".

    Yes, but the review was of those stars passing within 3LY. This one apparently reaches perihelion within the Oort cloud, which is a lot, lot closer than 3LY. Like, a couple of orders of magnitude closer. From what we think we know of it anyway, which is what I'm assuming the article is basing their definition of within the Oort cloud" on.

    It's a nice idea, but the Drake equation probably gets in the way. Even if it passes close enough for some kind of generation ship rendezvous, what are the odds of it having an M-class planet?

  25. Phew!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "Take your time for a thoughtful response; it will take another 250,000 to 470,000 year before the close encounter."

    For a moment I thought we'd really have to rush things.

  26. Based on the track record of Homo Sapiens Sapiens by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Minus interstellar travel, we *are* the vorlons. Or hadn't you checked the news recently?

  27. Re:A species that patient isn't going anywhere eve by Immerman · · Score: 1

    Hey, we've already survived at least 1.2 million, or at least so says that newly discovered "oldest known stone tool". Of course we weren't exactly modern humans back then, but neither will our descendents be a half-million years from now. Assuming they're still around of course, but that seems like a good bet - we're an incredibly adaptable species, I rather doubt anything will be able to wipe us out completely. In fact wiping out even 99.9% of the population would solve a LOT of problems our civilization is currently facing, while still leaving twice as many humans alive as were around when we were living as hunter-gatherers a scant 12 millenia ago.

    --
    --- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
  28. 3 stars come within 3.5 lightyears in 60K years by rubycodez · · Score: 4, Informative

    no need to wait that long, 3 other stars in the next 60,000 years will come less than 4 lightyears away

    http://simple.wikipedia.org/wi...

    note how alpha and proximy centauri do the Elvis thing and leave the building from 10,000 AD onward

  29. I think you misunderstood by Giant+Electronic+Bra · · Score: 4, Informative

    HIP 85605 will come within 8,000 AU of the Sun, still quite a distance, but VASTLY less than 3 light years. The blurb was also incorrect, this close pass will be in about 40k years, not 250k or more as stated (though perhaps this is a difference in sources, I don't know). 8,000 AU is something we could probably bridge with some advanced tech. For scale Voyager 1 is now at approximately 200 AU after 36 years of travel time, meaning it will take just shy of 2,000 years to reach this distance. It is certainly feasible to build a larger craft and fly it at 50x this speed using say fusion power, still only a very tiny fraction of C but yielding a trip time on the scale of a human lifetime. A little beyond our current engineering, but something similar to Daedelus, for instance, would suffice.

    So, the idea isn't crazy. Its not that big a stretch of the imagination to think that true interstellar travel in the classic sense is simply infeasible. In fact it really is fairly difficult to imagine from an engineering perspective, there are technical issues so vast that they may well be insoluble, or only solvable by making compromises that are just not acceptable or limit such travel to very infrequent probes or something. That would leave close approaches as the single exception.

    --
    "Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem." -- Jefferson
    1. Re:I think you misunderstood by Sperbels · · Score: 1

      I think that 40k number must a typo. All of the articles I've found say 240k to 470k. I only see 40k on only one website on a picture's caption, and then the article that accompanies it contradicts it and says 240k to 470k. But they all agree on the distance. 8,000 AU. Only 46 light days out. Really close. Sedna's aphelion is pretty far out, but it only goes 900 AU.

    2. Re:I think you misunderstood by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      8,000 AU is something we could probably bridge with some advanced tech.

      We don't even need to. In a couple of centuries, humans will be living in the Oort cloud. People will be able to move their habitats into orbit around any passing star with next to no effort.

    3. Re:I think you misunderstood by Pausanias · · Score: 1

      Come on guys, this is Slashdot. Here's the source: http://arxiv.org/abs/1412.3648 And it says 240K-470K years.

    4. Re:I think you misunderstood by Gavagai80 · · Score: 1

      People will be living on near-absolute-zero ice balls with no local energy sources in the interstellar void instead of somewhere interesting for what reason?

      --
      This space intentionally left blank
    5. Re:I think you misunderstood by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      HIP 85605 will come within 8,000 AU of the Sun, still quite a distance, but VASTLY less than 3 light years.

      So basically it will pass through our Oort cloud, and Sol will pass through HIP 85605's Oort cloud.
      That should displace a lot of rock and ice, and may even send some to Earth, causing another extinction level event...
      It also raises the interesting possibility that some of the bodies around Sol were captured from another star.

    6. Re:I think you misunderstood by TFlan91 · · Score: 1

      " but something similar to Daedelus, for instance, would suffice"

      Not sure what you intended on referencing, but Stargate! Woo!

    7. Re:I think you misunderstood by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's the only place that isn't full of niggers.

    8. Re:I think you misunderstood by khallow · · Score: 1

      People will be living on near-absolute-zero ice balls with no local energy sources

      Fission and fusion power would still be available.

    9. Re:I think you misunderstood by Giant+Electronic+Bra · · Score: 1

      Ah, yeah, I've been reading around and I have to agree, the 40k must be a typo or something. So it sounds like these kinds of passes are something like 1/megayear. That doesn't make them exactly very likely to let you spread your civilization all that much, does it? I mean if you have a planning horizon of millions of years and have been around that long I'd expect a trip of 3-5 light years wouldn't be completely infeasible.

      --
      "Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem." -- Jefferson
    10. Re:I think you misunderstood by Giant+Electronic+Bra · · Score: 1

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/P... is the original nuclear fusion powered starship study. It would be a 500 ton scientific payload reaching 0.12C, but it does require some capabilities not yet available. An Orion type system, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/P... using nuclear pulse propulsion however could presumably be built today with existing tech and would suffice for a trip to 8000 AU.

      --
      "Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem." -- Jefferson
    11. Re:I think you misunderstood by Grishnakh · · Score: 1

      That doesn't answer why on earth anyone would want to live there. You might as well build a generation ship and travel to Alpha Centauri if you're going to rely on an entirely artificial habitat with its own energy source. There doesn't seem to be much in the way of natural resources in the Oort Cloud anyway (and what there is is so widely dispersed it wouldn't exactly be easy to fly around and capture it).

    12. Re:I think you misunderstood by hughankers · · Score: 1

      It's the only place that isn't full of niggers.

      Looks like we have a volunteer for the first solo one way mission to explore the interstellar void. Have fun and don't hurry back..

    13. Re:I think you misunderstood by khallow · · Score: 1

      That doesn't answer why on earth anyone would want to live there.

      A question which I consider irrelevant. People live all over the place on Earth, often without a reason you'd understand. It's reasonable to expect, even if we can't understand "why", for them to live all over the place in space as well once those capabilities become established.

      There doesn't seem to be much in the way of natural resources in the Oort Cloud anyway (and what there is is so widely dispersed it wouldn't exactly be easy to fly around and capture it).

      But it wouldn't be hard either for someone living in the Oort cloud in the first place. Moving mass in space is rather easy though time consuming.

  30. Do you really believe... by NoseBag · · Score: 1

    ...that our species (and civilization) will even be around in a quarter-million years?

    I kinda doubt it.

    --
    Cloned foods give the statement "We had that last week!" a whole new meaning.
  31. The real spaceship Earth... by SuperKendall · · Score: 1

    I have to imagine someone has already written a story with a similar concept, but it seems like a cool idea would be to slowly accelerate the sun itself to go to a star of interest, so you could get VERY close to the target system for examination while the whole solar system followed along for the ride...

    It seems like you could accelerate slowly enough over a long period of time it would not bother the orbits of anything much. Or perhaps it would, and therein lies the story!

    --
    "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
  32. Of Haughty Timescales by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "Why travel 16 light years when you can just wait 300,000 years?"

    Because no human plan requiring 300,000 years to bear any fruit is worth very much, and there's no good reason to believe that we have the 300,000 years to wait.

  33. well by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    i would think that if another star decided to get close enough to perturb the oort cloud, we may have other issues to deal with.

    What, like sentient stars? Yeah, I would imagine that could cause some issues. Who knows what kinds of havoc they might decide to wreak?

  34. Bye, bye by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Rogue stars ejected from the Milky Way would drag their planets into intergalactic space.

  35. Laugh by koan · · Score: 1

    "470,000 years" Yeah most civilizations probably don't last that long.

    --
    "If any question why we died, Tell them because our fathers lied."
  36. Just colonized the oort cloud comets by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Instead of making the big lead from star to star. You can make smaller leaps from comet to comet.

    1. Re:Just colonized the oort cloud comets by mpthompson · · Score: 1

      Instead of making the big lead from star to star. You can make smaller leaps from comet to comet.

      This may best idea here as it may solve the replenishment of consumables such a long journey would entail. Hop from comet to comet until at the edge of the Oort cloud timing things so that the edge of another Oort cloud is passing by for the big interstellar hop to be made. H3 could be harvested on each comet for fusion energy to mine carbon, minerals and metals in preparation for the next hop. Any single hop wold probably be no more than a few decades - almost within our technology today.

      Given a few centuries of technical progress, I can forsee such a journey be possible by either biological entities (our descendants), robots or some hybrid of the two. Robots are interesting because theit artificial DNA could be programmed to spread like a virus from comet to comet, monitored for success or failure, and new improved models sent out if earlier models prove unsuccessful due to unforseen difficulties. Such advanced robots would probably be nearly indistinguishable from biology except for being well suited to reproduction and locomotion in the deep space environment of the Oort clouds.

    2. Re:Just colonized the oort cloud comets by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You've got it. This is also how aliens would get here,
      not in space ships, but by slow migratory steps--there's plenty
      of material to build habitats out there, and living on
      planets is an option that will start looking increasing
      quaint, should our species actually not manage
      to vacate the universe before this happens. The
      earth is a pretty weak source of resources at the
      bottom of a terribly inconvenient gravity well compared
      to what the rest of the solar system has to offer. As best we
      can tell, our Oort cloud is butted right up to the
      Oort clouds of the nearer stars around us, so no
      need to wait for passing strangers. Takes some time,
      but not a geological era's worth.

  37. Re:A species that patient isn't going anywhere eve by aliquis · · Score: 1

    How long do you assume the 16 LY travel will take when you are comparing them?

  38. Re: by tchuladdiass · · Score: 2

    The odds of a star having a lifeless planet with an oxygen rich atmosphere is pretty close to 0. Earth's oxygen was a result of life.

  39. Re: by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 3, Insightful

    what are the odds of it having an M-class planet?

    Not needed. We just need enough metal to build a Dyson Sphere. Any rocky planet, or even a few moons can supply the raw material. People shouldn't get so fixated on inhabiting planetary surfaces. That is not necessary or even desirable.

  40. If you really want to seed life... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Then send millions of tiny capsules full of extremophiles like water bears towards nearby potentially habitable stars. The energy requirements are too ridiculous to think that we'll be lucky enough to move any significant amount of mass out of here barring crazy new technology. And I'm afraid I think we'll hit quite the opposite of the singularity--I suspect we'll see more of an S curve, as we discover the various fundamental limits in physics.

  41. Re:A species that patient isn't going anywhere eve by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    If we can become patient enough to make Earth a sustainable habitat for 250,000 years of high-tech civilization, then we have a pretty good chance of star-hopping whether on our own across a 16LY jump, or waiting for convenient systems to pass by.

    If we can't hold space-travel tech together for even 1,000 years, I doubt we'll be very successful with any star-hopping endeavors.

  42. Are there any planets to land on? by cyn1c77 · · Score: 1

    Do any of these stars have planets? Because otherwise, there is nothing to land on when you starhop to them!

    (This would have been a good point to discuss in the article!!!)

    1. Re:Are there any planets to land on? by rubycodez · · Score: 1

      We now know, thanks to Kepler, that almost all stars have planets.

      http://www.space.com/24894-exo...

    2. Re:Are there any planets to land on? by Sqreater · · Score: 1

      And that very very few of them can support life.

      --
      E Proelio Veritas.
    3. Re:Are there any planets to land on? by rubycodez · · Score: 1

      one in five have rocky planet in habitable zone, we need ability to analyze atmospheres before we can say any more

    4. Re:Are there any planets to land on? by Sqreater · · Score: 1

      They have to stay in the habitable zone. Many of those "in habitable zone" don't spend all their time in the habitable zone and thus their water freezes or boils.

      --
      E Proelio Veritas.
  43. 250,000 years to ... by denisbergeron · · Score: 1

    Humans begin the civilisation 6000 years a go where We invent writing. In 250,000 years We will be extincts or We will travel faster than neutrinos

    --
    Ceci n'est pas une Signature !
  44. let the earth do the moving for you... by amoeba1911 · · Score: 4, Funny

    I tell my friends in China, why bother coming to United States? Just wait there, and eventually the North America will come to Asia by subduction. It's slow, but it sure beats paying $$$ for a plane ticket.

  45. hmmm by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    wouldn't a star that's by the oort cloud possibly change pluto / charon's orbit and possibly even earths?

    would be a real b1tch if we ended up circling closer or further from the sun.

  46. Re: What if... human's just weren't cut out for it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You mean DRMed/BRMed content, and water that the **AA and Monsanto-Nestle will sue the ass out of you for using?

  47. Re: by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 2

    The odds of a star having a lifeless planet with an oxygen rich atmosphere is pretty close to 0. Earth's oxygen was a result of life.

    No problem. A decade or two before you launch your main starship, you fire off a probe with some lichens and cyanobacteria. By the time you arrive, the planet will be terraformed, with plenty of O2.

  48. How? by justthinkit · · Score: 2

    and fly it at 50x this speed using say fusion power

    How does "fusion power" help it go 50 times faster?

    Going fast is a mass problem -- you have to send a lot of mass out behind you to go really fast in space. Xenon propulsion using "just the sun" works pretty good at this sort of thing. Maybe you meant "fusion + a whole bunch of mass we can accelerate really fast and fire out our rocket butt?"

    --
    I come here for the love
    1. Re: How? by symbolset · · Score: 1

      It turns out going fast is an energy problem, not a mass problem, except in as much a mass is a form of energy. Fusion converts mass to energy, so Lockheed Martin says they might have this figured out. Naked fusion propulsion in the gigawatt range (million horsepower) in a form factor that would fit in the back of a pickup truck. A few of those in parallel, a few gallons of water and it's off to the stars at 1G. Being in the exhaust would suck though - wear your SPF 5 billion because it's going to be hot.

      --
      Help stamp out iliturcy.
    2. Re:How? by RoLi · · Score: 1

      Voyager was not designed to go fast, so going 50 times faster is not as hard as it sounds.

    3. Re:How? by Kjella · · Score: 1

      Voyager was not designed to go fast, so going 50 times faster is not as hard as it sounds.

      I'm sorry, but you have absolutely no clue about what you're talking about. Voyager used the major planets aligning to slingshot out of the solar system at speeds that no practical chemical rocket can reach. This is because to go faster you need to carry more fuel, but this fuel makes it even harder to accelerate causing an exponential relationship. Even just to match Voyager unassisted we need an entirely different kind of unproven technology like fission, fusion, antimatter, ion or solar sail being possible candidates. Going 50 times faster is "they do it on Star Trek" difficult, all we have is loose thought experiments. But hey prove me wrong and you'll have my apologies and more than a few Nobel prizes.

      --
      Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
    4. Re:How? by khallow · · Score: 1

      How does "fusion power" help it go 50 times faster?

      Higher ISP and decent thrust/weight.

      Going fast is a mass problem -- you have to send a lot of mass out behind you to go really fast in space.

      And if that mass gets sent out "really faster" then you need less of it and you can have a better mass fraction. The point of something like "fusion power" is to provide the energy for a higher ISP engine.

      Maybe you meant "fusion + a whole bunch of mass we can accelerate really fast and fire out our rocket butt?"

      He never meant anything else.

    5. Re:How? by khallow · · Score: 1

      Voyager used the major planets aligning to slingshot out of the solar system at speeds that no practical chemical rocket can reach.

      Then use something different, for example, fission powered electric propulsion. How many Nobel prizes did I win this time?

      Going 50 times faster is "they do it on Star Trek" difficult

      No.

    6. Re:How? by Giant+Electronic+Bra · · Score: 1

      Exactly. Something like a fusion reaction energizing a VASIMIR-like magnetic nozzle choked down to a small diameter would produce a very high specific impulse (IE very fast exhaust velocity). You might also utilize gravity assist, but that would only be worth a fairly small increment of extra velocity (perhaps a Solar gravity assist would work, stealing some energy from the Sun's orbit around the galaxy, this could be possible though I don't know if it would be a good idea or not).

      As far as the Voyager comment goes, they are going as fast as we could possibly get something moving at the time given the tech and navigational constraints. Its possible to attain somewhat higher velocities, but not a LOT higher with chemical rockets. Fusion power in the sense of a really efficient controlled fusion power source is not 'Star Trek' tech however. Its maybe 100 years out tech, but nothing new is required in terms of physics, etc. A fission rocket could actually work too, something like the Daedalus pusher-plate bomb concept could essentially be built today. It would be less efficient than some sort of advanced gas-core reactor, but we have not yet worked out how to build those either (easier than fusion probably, but not by a lot).

      I feel confident that some pathway exists to say 100 AU/year velocities, which is enough for Oort Cloud type exploration, beyond that it is all very speculative though. There are plenty of concepts that can get to 8,000 AU, laser sails, fission/fusion, etc.

      --
      "Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem." -- Jefferson
    7. Re: How? by ceoyoyo · · Score: 1

      Gravity assists would likely be used for a trip to a nearby star as well. You certainly wouldn't use chemical rockets though. You'd use some kind of ion or plasma drive. We could get one going much faster than voyager with today's technology and solar panels or a fission reactor, or even faster with things we think we'll be able to build in the future, such as fusion reactors.

    8. Re:How? by Grishnakh · · Score: 1

      Even just to match Voyager unassisted we need an entirely different kind of unproven technology like fission,

      So we'll just need to invent nuclear fission then. Oh wait, we've been doing that for 75 years now....

  49. Sam Clemens (Mark Twain) on a glacier by dltaylor · · Score: 1

    Reminds me of the bit from A Tramp Abroad where the companions were planning to get from the mountain to the village by riding down on glacier.

    Turned out to be faster to walk.

  50. Re: by The+Grim+Reefer · · Score: 1

    I can't say I've really given it much thought, but is there even enough material in the entire solar system to build a Dyson sphere in the habitable zone? Not to mention enough suitable material. It's going to take more than a planet, or a few moons, I would think.

  51. Re: by symbolset · · Score: 2
    These suns have already been this close to our sun thousands of times in the last 4 billion years that our solar system has been thoroughly polluted with life. We have exchanged many megatons of material with them. As some of these suns are 8 billion years older than our sun it is far more likely life came here from there than the other way around.

    Anyway, the article neglects that these suns probably have Oort clouds of their own, and a different ecliptic plane, which means theircomets would be coming at an angle Jupiter doesn't protect us from, and potentially at an exceptionally high rate of speed. What with our own comet adventures with Shoemaker-Levy 9 and Siding Spring, Earth interaction with a comet may be more likely than previously thought.

    --
    Help stamp out iliturcy.
  52. Re: What if... human's just weren't cut out for it by symbolset · · Score: 2

    I would not be so sure of that.

    --
    Help stamp out iliturcy.
  53. Pointless conversation by geekmux · · Score: 1

    "Take your time for a thoughtful response; it will take another 250,000 to 470,000 year before the close encounter."

    Are you certain we shouldn't wait for something more timely, like blue smurfs flying out of my ass? Or perhaps a unicorn will come along soon, traveling at ludicrous speed of course.

    Sorry, but this last statement in TFS basically put a fine point on this entire discussion, as if to say there's no point in discussing it at all.

    1. Re:Pointless conversation by Sqreater · · Score: 1

      Yes, busythink seems to consume this site at times.

      --
      E Proelio Veritas.
  54. Re: by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 1

    is there even enough material in the entire solar system to build a Dyson sphere in the habitable zone?

    One AU is about 1.5e11 meters. So a Dyson Sphere at one AU would have an area of about 2.8e23 square meters. If it was made of metal 1 cm thick (plenty to hold in one atm) then 2.8e21 cubic meters of metal would be needed. The earth contains (4/3 * 3.14 * 6.37e6 ^ 3) = 1.08e21 m^3, and is mostly metal. So you would only need to dismantle two earth sized planets to get the raw material to build a Dyson Sphere that could provide about a hundred million square kilometers of sunlit space to every person currently living on earth.

  55. Re: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You need to check the pressure vessel equations. They are a function of radius. Required minimum thickness goes up with radius for the same pressure.

  56. Re: by Your.Master · · Score: 2

    I don't know exactly how long it would take to terraform, and I can grant that it may be less than it took Earth to bootstrap an oxygen atmosphere, but I suspect it's much much much much longer than a couple decades.

  57. Re:A species that patient isn't going anywhere eve by argStyopa · · Score: 1

    Except that allows Congress a quarter of a million years to procrastinate, so that's just about perfect for them.

    --
    -Styopa
  58. Re:A species that patient isn't going anywhere eve by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    > I honestly don't know how you can justify making any assumptions about what a race the survives 250,000 years might or might not do.

    You're absolutely correct. Unless we have specifically come across a situation before, we should say nothing about it whatsoever. We should use no forms of extrapolation, logic, induction, intuition or reasoning to expose various hypotheses for evaluation or contraindication.

    Oh sorry - I mean the opposite.

  59. Re: What if... human's just weren't cut out for i by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Ask MultiVac.

  60. Re: by SuricouRaven · · Score: 1

    And pre-life it'll be mostly carbon dioxide. We could work with that. Carbon dioxide plus energy can be processed into oxygen. Just means the colony might be stuck indoors or wearing respirators for a few thousand years. Annoying, but manageable.

  61. Re: by SuricouRaven · · Score: 1

    A dyson sphere is grav-null inside. You'd need two shells, with atmosphere sandwiched between.

  62. Re: by RoLi · · Score: 1

    Currently we are covering the Earth with greenhouses because (drumroll) they provide a better (yes, I said it) environment for plants than nature does.

    In 400,000 years, one can imagine most of the Earth covered by greenhouses.

    Think about that for a moment.

    So of course any space colonization will be based on greenhouses and not on terraforming or any other such nonsense.

  63. Re:3 stars come within 3.5 lightyears in 60K years by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    A better suggestion might be Greg Egan, e.g.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

  64. Re: by RoLi · · Score: 1

    "One AU is about 1.5e11 meters."

    So you propose an environment that is baked 24/7 with the Sun at the zenith at all times? And you claim that that is desirable? Humans could only survive on that with pretty heavy airconditioning.

    "If it was made of metal 1 cm thick"

    Right. And it has to be airtight, it has to be somehow able to support plants, houses and streets - and withstand a constant bombardment of micrometeorites. All that on 1cm.
    And it has to rotate at enormeous speeds to create gravity (which would not work at the poles anyway, so the poles would fall into the Sun).

    "you would only need to dismantle two earth sized planets"

    OK, then you have a huge sheet of 1cm thick bare metal. How many planets do we need to actually do something with it? Growing plants needs a little more than 1cm of soil. So the soil alone would take a couple of planets.

  65. Re: by itzly · · Score: 1

    If we cover the Earth in greenhouses, we don't need to colonize another planet. We can just keep stacking greenhouses.

  66. Re: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'd like to think you're joking but it seems like you really think that. It is insane. Please stop thinking that terraforming is that easy.

  67. While waiting by Rashdot · · Score: 1

    You can spend some time on this website for an alternate future http://www.orionsarm.com/

    --
    This is not the sig you're looking for.
  68. Re: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Well, that's the method I used last time and it turned out fine

  69. Stuck at earth ? by GlowingCat · · Score: 1

    What if all the good places are already taken ?

  70. Re:The sun wobbles by Sqreater · · Score: 1

    The same RV measures that are used to find exoplanets would apply to our own planetary system. And the nonsensical "Dyson Sphere" would react how?

    --
    E Proelio Veritas.
  71. Re:A species that patient isn't going anywhere eve by gatkinso · · Score: 1

    Seems like if we launched now, the attempt that waits 250,000 might get there sooner.

    --
    I am very small, utmostly microscopic.
  72. Stellar motion by gatkinso · · Score: 1

    With current technology, if we launched now we would probably end up in a situation where the relative motion of the star away from us would out run our spacecraft. Sure for now the star might be moving towards us... but by the time we got halfway it's orbit might be moving away from us again.

    --
    I am very small, utmostly microscopic.
  73. Fucking. by denzacar · · Score: 1

    I'm pretty sure that for any spreading of civilization a LOT of fucking will be of vital importance.

    Machines don't constitute civilizations and clones are more like really elaborate fan clubs.
    Sure, artificial insemination IS possible but that's the same result but without all the fun.
    And the civilization that rejects fun is a dull and eventually dead civilization.

    So... Fucking.
    A LOT of it.

    --
    Mit der Dummheit kämpfen Götter selbst vergebens
  74. The only possible interstellar travel by gatkinso · · Score: 1

    Freeze a bunch of bacteria and DNA into particles the size of a grain of sand. Build thousands of probes that carry several hundred kg of this material, and launch them in all directions.

    Once they get out of the suns gravity well, they spray the material as they travel along.

    Maybe just for fun aim the probe itself to achieve orbit around a G class star, and hope the residue eventually makes its way to a habitable planet.

    In 100 million years or so (not that long in galactic terms) Earth life might take hold somewhere else.

    This is not very friendly for any other life out there.

    --
    I am very small, utmostly microscopic.
  75. Re:A species that patient isn't going anywhere eve by khallow · · Score: 1

    Any species that is willing to wait 250,000 years to avoid a 16 LY trip would never get to space at all.

    You also have to consider the threshold for smaller groupings than entire species. For example, if my religious cult wants to go, it's a lot cheaper and safer to go with a smaller trip even if it takes a bit longer to get there. There might also be a lot more parties taking the thing seriously, if the nearest system is several times closer than the current 4.3 light years.

  76. Re:Planet? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The question, is, with the disruption of the ORT cloud. What would be left of earth?. The ORT cloud with the asteroids are what gave us earth. It helped part the dust clouds that could feed the sun. And populated the interior with the lighter chemicals. How long before the influences of the incoming star system show up in our arena. To have an adequate earth protection mechanism, we must be space faring, or just say, humans die, I wonder which one our oligarchs will choose?

  77. Re: What if... human's just weren't cut out for it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Sorry, where and how do we access the records of an foundered civilization? Shucks, look at what is inaccessible from the 1960's. 8 tracks anyone? I remember from the 60's working for a local public TV station, using a reel to reel recorder to tape interviews with local students and teachers for broadcast. None of that equipment that I helped to build would be accessible now. There were interviews with teachers and researchers from Montana complexes that were developing the newest reactors, and coming back to gm to continue their research.

  78. Re: by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 1

    A dyson sphere is grav-null inside. You'd need two shells, with atmosphere sandwiched between.

    A Dyson Sphere is not a solid sphere. It is a swarm of independently orbiting objects, such as O'Neill Cylinders.

  79. Altruism trumpeted by Evil by rsborg · · Score: 1

    Have a good reputation by practicing ahinsa, and always helping and not hurting the civilizations one visits. Send a copy of your self to other civilizations and get them to build it, giving them detailed instructions. (Use error correcting codes for the instructions.) In return perform same service for others with good reputations! Using this method one can cross space at the speed of light or better. You can cross space at the speed a message can travel.

    If you hurt anyone your reputation will be damaged and with it the ability to travel.

    Right up until you meet a civilization that's intent on destroying your civ's reputation (and possibly going on a genocidal rampage) for whatever petty resource or idealistic goals they see fit.

    And would you really want to create a set of instructions to build humans ... perhaps just so they become slaves or a tasty snack for the aliens on the other end?

    --
    Make sure everyone's vote counts: Verified Voting
  80. Re: by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 1

    And it has to rotate at enormeous speeds to create gravity (which would not work at the poles anyway, so the poles would fall into the Sun).

    That is not what a Dyson Sphere is. I think you have it confused with Ringworld.

  81. Diagram of closest stars over time by geantvert · · Score: 1

    A few weeks ago, I saw a diagram showing how the closest stars are moving over time relative to earth.
    I can't find it anymore but it is somewhere on internet.

    1. Re:Diagram of closest stars over time by geantvert · · Score: 1

      I was searching too far! It was just there on the Proxima Centauri wikipedia page :-)
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/P...

  82. Re:A species that patient isn't going anywhere eve by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If we could get a spacecraft to even 1% of c, 16Ly trip could be done in 1600 years. So yeah, waiting for 250000 years does not make sense at all. Milky Way is only something on the order of 120kLy in diameter, in 250ky I would expect humans to colonize, or atleast send probes to most of it. And that is without any monkeying around with warp drives or whatnot.

  83. Orphan Planets by geantvert · · Score: 1

    If I am not mistaken, the galaxy should could be contain far more orphan planets than stars.
    They are difficult to detect (with our current technology) but they could be a good way to leave the solar system.
    A wandering planet would provide all the raw material needed to sustain life for thousands or millions of years.
    Of course, there would be no sun but, hopefully, our civilization will be able to get almost free energy from fusion within a few decades.

     

  84. Re:Slow Interstellar by DanielRavenNest · · Score: 1

    > The hard part is getting up to speed, and slowing down at the destination.

    The diffusion method I call "slow interstellar" doesn't require that. If you already live in the Sun's Oort Cloud, and another star gets close enough that the Oort Clouds overlap, you only have to match velocity, which is on the order of 50 km/s. After that you drift along with the other star, spreading to fill their environment, until another close stellar encounter happens. This method requires more patience than humans possess, though.

  85. Relative speed is more important than distance by dradler · · Score: 1

    This stars whizzing by us are going fast. While the distance may be short, the energy required to rendezvous with a "nearby" star will be far greater than the energy required to travel to a more distant star that has a low relative velocity with ours.

  86. Re: What if... human's just weren't cut out for it by Immerman · · Score: 1

    What do records from a foundered civilization have to do with anything? (though if you want them we have plenty of records from plenty of civilizations that have collapsed here on Earth. Essentially all of them that kept records in fact, excepting the current handful that haven't yet collapsed.)

    And if you can't play reel-to-reel or 8-track it simply means you're not trying very hard - scarcely a month goes by that I don't come across at least one such old player in apparent working condition. And it wouldn't exactly be difficult to build a reader from scratch given only the tapes, even if you had never seen so much as a cassette player in your life. In fairness though, yes - the vast majority of records of the last century will probably be lost, one of the downsides to using highly unstable recording media. Many of our paper records will survive though.

    --
    --- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
  87. Re: by SuricouRaven · · Score: 1

    A dyson sphere is a structure for energy collection above all. If you want nicely habitable space, you build a ringworld so you can have at least a little bit of gravity (Though not very much, or it tears apart). Dyson spheres are for those who have energy-intensive megaprojects, like running a simulated civilisation or trying to broadcast a beacon the entire galaxy can detect.

  88. travel by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Sigh. I always get tired of these.
    Ok
    You know that line about sufficiently advanced tech appearing as magic to a lower tech culture.
    Well if we took or current tech Bach to cave men...
    So where will we be in a thousand years?
    I have no freaking clue.
    Either dead or out in the stars.
    Saying we can't go fast enough is kinda silly. Sure you and I can't. That does not mean they will never.
    Now to wait 250,000 years for a planet to come close, than again to the next?
    That is insane.
    That's a let's wait till we evolve to do anything.
    Not
    Long before that planet gets near we will figure out a way to get there if we live.
    Look at how far we have come how fast. Two hundred years they thought going faster than a horse would kill. Comoros, internet? Hell th best sci fi writers though there was air and people lived on the moon.
    Do when people say we will never go that fast. Yeah yeah. They said that about cars trains planes. Everything.
    I don't in the last bit doubt that at some point every light speed will not be a problem.
    How long will that take, hours will out be done who knows. But it will happen.
    If we don't kill ourselves first.

  89. Re: by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 1

    If you want nicely habitable space, you build a ringworld

    A Ringworld is a science fiction plot device. It is utterly implausible, requiring material strength a trillion times higher than any known substance. You could build a Dyson Ring, but that would just be a step toward buiding a Dyson Sphere, which is made up of Dyson Rings.

  90. Re:3 stars come within 3.5 lightyears in 60K years by CopterHawk · · Score: 1

    Ideally we would send artificially intelligent machines who don’t mind a journey that takes hundreds of years to explore and begin building infrastructure thousands of years before any humans will arrive. Then when the star is at its closest there is a mad dash of humans to populate the system.

    Do this every time a star is going to approach to within 4-5 LY and then from those stars when they approach other stars, and so on. It starts to seem feasible for the human race to overcome the vast engineering challenges of spreading throughout the galaxy. It would be difficult to get humans to put effort into something that takes more than a lifetime to accomplish though.

  91. just be a good civilization by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Personally I think if we just clean up our mess here on planet earth and grow up a little. (stop killing ourselves)... maybe some folk's would be more inclined to pay us a visit and share some tech. :)

  92. By Neruos by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Humans will never colonize another planet, get over it. Focus on paying your rent and getting what "you" want out of life. 95% of the earths population could care less about space, it's that 95% you will need to face when resources on this planet become rare. Think about that.

  93. Re: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Its a matter of inevitability. To think that we could survive on this planet for 400,000 years after seeing what we have done in 200 is a bit of a pipe dream.

  94. Re: by ceoyoyo · · Score: 1

    Your original post appears to be calculating the amount of material based on a dyson shell 5 cm thick. You'll find a swarm of independently orbiting 5 cm thick objects kind of challenging for habitation.

  95. That's how life managed to spread all over by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Those encounters between stars and their cometary clouds provide a very nice mechanism for spreading life from wherever it might have originated, and why there's life on every world with liquid water. Life on Earth no doubt arrived here via various space rocks and comets carrying bacteria or even simple multicellular organisms like tardigrades, which are well known for being able to withstand the conditions of space and even the impact with Earth when they get here. And worlds like earth are continually being re-seeded from space. The new arrivals are indistinguishable from organisms that are already here, so they aren't noticed. That also allows worlds to go through sterilizing catastrophes and have life return to them over and over again.

  96. News for you ... by CaptainDork · · Score: 1
    --
    It little behooves the best of us to comment on the rest of us.
    1. Re:News for you ... by tehcyder · · Score: 1

      Scientists describe virtually everything that is alive as animal or plant. So, if you’re not a plant then you are an animal!

      And yet another slashdotter proves that they don't understand how words can have more than one meaning depending on the context.

      Also, top work on citing "discovery kids" as a scientific source.

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
    2. Re:News for you ... by CaptainDork · · Score: 1

      First comment is an excuse.

      Second one is not top work on picking up on the insult.

      --
      It little behooves the best of us to comment on the rest of us.
  97. Re: by SuricouRaven · · Score: 1

    It only needs the impossible strength if you're spinning it for gravity. Though it'd still be a ridiculous thing to build, when s swarm of smaller (though still huge by current standards) objects is more practical and less prone to catastrophic failure.

  98. Re: by delt0r · · Score: 1

    No, it also has it own gravity and the suns gravity and the air pressure, also is not stable. Run the numbers. They are quite impossible. And really why would you want one. Lots of smaller traditional stations would work better anyway.

    --
    If information wants to be free, why does my internet connection cost so much?
  99. Re: by SuricouRaven · · Score: 1

    A mega-project like that? Why would you want the pyramids? It's the way to say your civilization is now advanced enough to do anything they feel like, for no better reason than to show they can.

  100. Re: by delt0r · · Score: 1

    Doesn't change the fact that they are quite impossible. Interatomic bonds are simply not strong enough by many many orders of magnitude.

    --
    If information wants to be free, why does my internet connection cost so much?
  101. Re: Dyson Sphere Unbuildable by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I never get the practicality of the Dyson Sphere. They seem unbuildable, in my opinion.

    A Dyson Sphere is not gravitationally stable around the star it orbits. In fact it cannot be said to orbit at all, and building a Ringworld still has the same problem. This is usually waved off with mumbling about "station-keeping rockets" or some such.

    A Dyson Sphere also will not hold together in the required shell structure. The planets are mainly rock (silica), and gaseous elements. How these are supposed to bind together into a strong, stable surface just a kilometer (or less) in thickness is never explained.

    It's always hazardous to guess at far distant technology. That said, the laws of materials and physics can fairly safely be forecast as durable and consistent.

  102. Re:A species that patient isn't going anywhere eve by Bite+The+Pillow · · Score: 1

    "Willing to wait" is not the same thing as "able to wait".

    If we have no choice but to wait, perhaps willing is the next best thing.

    Or do you have the secret to FTL travel hidden in your pants?

  103. Re:A species that patient isn't going anywhere eve by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If we're willing to think about travel on that time scale -- and colonization is the goal -- an effective means might be to send (instead of, say human astronauts) a big mix of freeze-dried microbes and plankton from collected from different environments on Earth and wait for our emissaries to land and evolve and get back to use. Maybe send some kind of generic instructions on how to get back to us.

  104. Re: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You ought to patent your "Terraforming for Dummies in 24 Years" solution, you'd make a fortune.

  105. Resources by DarthVain · · Score: 1

    Getting up to speed in any time to get someplace in a reasonable amount of time takes an enormous amount of fuel to maintain constant acceleration half way, and constant deceleration the other half. I remember seeing a graphic that the mount of hydrogen it would take to do this for our nearest solar system was somewhere in the realm of the entire mass of our Sun... So unless you having something that can collect enough material such as the aforementioned ramjet, effectively impossible. This is where things like ion drives come into play, however current (untested other than in a lab) technology, is so slow a rate of acceleration to be much use for anything unless improvements can be made. Again things like solar sails (I believe the Japanese were looking at possibly testing that), might work, however once you get far enough away from a solar source (and solar "winds"), its effectiveness probably isn't so great at interstellar travel.

    Best to wait for warp travel :). Presuming that as time goes on better technology is developed, we would be in the weird situation that each new method might mean that newer travel would be constantly overtaking older travel...