future Interplanetary Civilization discussion. - Page 3

Master Belisarius · #21 February 3rd, 2004, 02:13 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Atrocities:
Sorry Narf, I am really depressed right now. I should have said that it is not going to happen because we will never colonize another planet. Even if we did, the colony would fail, or just be a military science outpost.

Secondly if the utter complete unlikelyhood that we did colonize another planet, it would go much like inter nation relations go now. So again, it simply is not worth it.

Yep, maybe really you have not your best day, or maybe I'm too optimistic... but I'm pretty sure that if the mankind doesn't destroy himself before this, our home system will be colonized and even some planets terraformed (Mars, Venus as example). Of course that think it will not happen soon (a millennium?).
But colonize beyond our home system... think the probabilities are not so good.

Quote:

Originally posted by Atrocities:

Secondly if the utter complete unlikelyhood that we did colonize another planet, it would go much like inter nation relations go now. So again, it simply is not worth it.

Well, I would support this view.

narf poit chez BOOM · #22 February 3rd, 2004, 02:14 AM

Quote:

Well, I would support this view.

i would say the accomplishments of the human race outweigh the petty politics of nations.

Master Belisarius · #23 February 3rd, 2004, 02:28 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by narf poit chez BOOM:
i would say the accomplishments of the human race outweigh the petty politics of nations.

Well, I'm the pessimistic now.
Really do you think the humans would change? Don't think so. In my view, we will continue killing our brothers for a piece of land or for a God that doesn't exist...
I think the reptilian part of our brain will be still there... and something different would mean that we evolved in a new and better race (In my view will not happen, at least soon).

narf poit chez BOOM · #24 February 3rd, 2004, 02:35 AM

how are we going to kill each other at 50+ly? really, if you're going to take that view, i'd think you'd like space colony's.

Taz-in-Space · #25 February 3rd, 2004, 06:03 AM

Quote:

anyone know any other possible, non-FTL engines? no unknown science, predictable technology only.

Well, I read somewhere that it is possible to use controlled nuclear explosions as an engine.
Sort of a putt-putt-putt engine with a nuclear explosion as each putt!

Just don't get too close to the business end!!

As anyone can guess this tech would require massive shielding; but should allow a large payload...

As far as the likelyhood of colonizing other planets - I think that if a habitable planet is descovered (or made) and the tech exists to get there reasonably easy; then colonization WILL happen. It will be inevitable!

Phoenix-D · #26 February 3rd, 2004, 06:07 AM

The thing about the nuclear explosion (or Orion) engines is they work better the bigger they get. A bit like fusion reactors, even if the concept is totally different.

_Footfall_ had one of these, and described the main problem with them when it launched as such..

"God was knocking, and he wanted in BAD."

Kamog · #27 February 3rd, 2004, 07:44 AM

Wouldn't that type of engine pollute space with radioactive waste? Sure, space is big and the stuff coming out of the engine is a relatively small amount, but in the long term if we have lots of ships like that flying around, it can't be good, can it?

Member 4148 · #28 February 3rd, 2004, 07:47 AM

compared to the fusion reactions of all those stars?

nuclear engens make not a dent

oleg · #29 February 3rd, 2004, 01:41 PM

Yes, there is no need to wary about it. The level of radioactivity from solar wind alone can kill a man without shielding. If we send all our nukes to space and detonate them, there would be no detectable change in the level of radiation.

Orion project was very well designed indeed. They developed low yield warheads(<0.1kT) with shaped bLast projection to maximize the thrust.

dogscoff · #30 February 4th, 2004, 11:00 AM

A while back someone posted a very long and very interesting article/ discourse from "Culture" author Iain M Banks, that was quite appropriate to this thread.

Basically, he said that his Culture universe had grown up the way it is because once people have the ability to travel freely in space and create their own living environments wherever they like, then all society will tend towards anarchy.
His reasoning is that it will suddenly become very difficult to impose control on populations. If people don't like what you're telling them to do then all they have to do is pack up and live somewhere else. There's no shortage of living space out there, and when people can move freely in 3 dimensions it's very hard to wall them in and stop them escaping your influence. You could chase them down, but in the end all you can do is threaten to destroy them and- ultimately- such destruction would be against your own interests.

I think he is thinking a few hundred years of technology ahead of this thread (basically he requires that energy is plentiful, space travel is fairly trivial and sustainable long term living conditions can be artificially created in space or on some dead world), but overall I think his is a very sensible concept, and it might yet come to pass.

It certainly would be nice to have unlimited living space- You could solve half the world's conflicts overnight. Imagine saying to the Palestinians and the Israelis: "OK guys, have an entire planet each. You can build your nations there and live however the hell you like. It might not be the holy land but we'll set up a spaceport just outside Jerusalem and let you come visit any time you like."