That’s like saying: We have radiation, we know radiation kills cancer cells, so we have the technology to cure cancer. There are a myriad of unknown variables to account for; we know this from experience in all scientific/technological endeavors. Scale alone has turned up many problems. And it’ll be far worse in this case, because of the unknowns involving sealing people up in a tin can for decades (at least), and keeping them healthy, happy, and sane.
We can’t even detect all the PLANETS at the range of Proxima Centauri, and you insist that we CAN detect all the pebbles between here and there? That fails right up front. Emissions don’t equal detectable emissions.
If they’re actually testing something, I’ll concede that much. As to fusion, I was referring to something practical; as in, something that actually produces more energy than it uses. If there’s a cold fusion demonstration that has achieved this, it’s news to me (and I follow the news).
Yet, we’ve cured cancer with this technology. If that’s the level we’re at, even if it doesn’t always work, you’re already admitting that it can. Thus, science is not saying “no” to this.
That’s not an engineering problem, nor is that science saying we can’t do it. That’s a psychological research problem.
And mind, the second part is what I’m getting at here; Science is not saying we can’t do this.
This is not the same debate as talking about an FTL drive, or how to effectively overcome human factors, and I think that’s what you’re confusing here.
Science says we can reach relativistic velocity with scaled up versions current technology, we can find ways to deal with debris, we can create materials that absorb only a fraction of the lasers energy to keep it from combusting, even at magnitudes of 100 GW, and we can keep the laser coherent long enough to transfer the momentum.
Because of radiation coming from the star; hence why we also confused detection of a dust cloud in that system, that was actually a solar flare from said star.
Again, we’re talking about an area of empty space where there’s no big objects to obscure what is there. Unless you’re premising a theoretical object made of dark matter here, there isn’t anyway for large objects to hide. Gamma Rays and other radiation reveal to us what is there.
It means we know this area is empty space with low density of matter; just like we know Utah Salt Flats are miles of level densely packed salt pan.
From standing in one place, you don’t know where every rock or large crevasse is, but from looking around, taking samples, and applying a little knowledge of geology, you do know the composition of the place, and the likelihood of those objects turning up.
We’re not talking about cold fusion. That’s pseudo-science as far as I’m aware.
The ITER reactor, once it’s complete, will produce well above the break-even point. The reactor Google is backing, and the one being developed by Lockheed’s Skunk Works promise the same result.
Up to you whether you believe them, but they’re confident enough that they’re not saying it will take 20 years for the “ignition” milestone; they’re predicting less than 10. 2025.
I may not be articulating perfectly, but you’re nit picking like a lawyer. What I’m saying is that:
Evidence: Radiation kills cancer cells.
Evidence: I have an APG-63 radar that makes lots of radiation.
Faulty inference: I can cure cancer with it.
You’re mincing words with “that’s not an engineering problem,” and “science doesn’t say we can’t do it.” First of all, to build a _and propel to 0.2c_ship with the mass necessary for decades of inhabitation light months and light years from Earth most certainly is an engineering problem. “Science is not saying” a lot of things can’t be done. But that proves nothing. I’m not confusing anything; the issue we started with colonizing/terraforming. The technology you’re discussing- even if it works as advertised in the real world- won’t accomplish this. If that’s not what you’re arguing, then yes, you moved the goalposts.
Only if you can detect them at range. We can’t be sure of what’s under our nose much of the time. Pebbles and larger rocks don’t have to hide from a de-facto blind man.
We don’t “know” anything of the sort. There’s only so much that observation from a light week (or even a light _day,_let alone a light year) can tell us. And newsflash: We’re not taking samples from a light week or farther; bad analogy.
Ever hear the expression “don’t count your chickens before they’re hatched?” Controllable practical nuke fusion has been elusive. Maybe they will get it; but until then, it ain’t a done deal.
You tried to claim science was the obstacle here; that the concept of relativistic space travel wasn’t even something within reach for us:
“We don’t even have a proven concept for relativistic-speed space drive, and FTL is nothing but speculation.”
“But I’m still not betting a dime on a relativistic-speed drive before the Lord returns, let alone FTL.”
This isn’t about articulation; this is apparently you either not budging, or not comprehending, the implication of what you said, and the distinction it creates.
The difference between an engineering problem, and a scientific one.
It’s not valid for you to complain I’m “mincing words” on that, when you made the claim.
If you didn’t mean it, then it’s pretty confusing to me why the hell you said it. Why you tried to disqualify the project this way.
And then you tried to deny that we had nothing that could reach relativistic speed; that it was a hurdle we didn’t even have a workable plan for. That was false.
You said it. I addressed it. Tit for tat. You can’t complain my making that the subject, when you claimed it. You kicked it off, and tried to invalidate the subject by saying “We can’t even do x.” By saying that, you lowered the bar.
And there’s nothing to obscure them, or to keep Galactic Cosmic Rays from being bent by their presence.
Dust clouds can’t hide, and Astronomical spectroscopy, lets us know what it’s composition is, and how dense it is. This is proven science. We’ve used it to help navigate spacecraft intra-Sol, into places we’ve equally never been to before.
This isn’t as “unknowable” as you want to assert; and solar systems themselves are far more crowded in terms of dust & other objects than the space between them.
No; you inferred science. The engineering clearly hasn’t been demonstrated; and I strongly question the alleged science. Yes, you did mince words (not for the first time).
Show me the proof that the chickens have hatched. Yes, you minced words as to the viability of the technology; and the purpose thereof. (By the way, I seem to recall you bellyaching about me harping on the range of the F-15E when according to you, the issue was strictly about the prospects of a rescue at Benghazi (to which the range of the F-15E was critical, and after I called you out on the figure you cited, you refused to touch it with a ten foot pole; I suppose this will get me another lecture on how I “dropped the ball again” and how you don’t care who I think I am). Well, guess what: The issue here is colonization and terraforming, and an unmanned probe going by and unable to stop because its propulstion is on one end of the journey doesn’t address this in any meaningful way even if the technoloy you cite works as advertised.)
Except sheer distance.
Pebbles aren’t dust clouds, and places we’ve never been to within a few light hours is not the same as places we’ve never been to light days, weeks, months, and YEARS. If it were as simple as you’re saying, we’d know every object within line of sight in our interstellar area.
No. It’s not as knowable as you want to assert. The chickens- either the developed technology or the science of the content of interstellar space- haven’t hatched.
BS. Are you REALLY trying to convince us that all the BS you post here comes out of your own fevered imagination and not from one of the “search engines” the left REQUIRES everyone on line to use in research? We KNOW you’re not going to the library to come up with some of the BS you post here, so you HAVE to be using one of them…Wiki, Google or one of their clones.
A human civilization that both incorporates active mining of the Asteroid belt and the outer planets/ their moons, will be several 100 times larger than what it is now.
There are singular rocks that contain the equivalent of all our rare mineral needs, for the next decade.
As to who would do it, well, I kind of like The Expanse suggestion; the Mormons. Looking to seed themselves among the stars, they build a generational ship.
But in a world where we’ve mastered laser propulsion, that likely won’t be necessary, unless their target is quite a ways off.
It’s about the human need to be exploratory, and push the edges of the Frontier. We as a species are built to do that, and in so doing, we constantly renew the broader society back home. Give it vigor again.
Yes. This really ought to be a light topic – and fun. And it was. Until FC and AS started arguing about the argument, it was an interesting discussion. I stayed with it pretty much to that point. And then came mudslinging.
So, I feel bad for the first nonfiction generational ship. I wouldn’t want to be aboard it. I worry that long before it reaches its destination, we’ll discover practical FTL. By the time the generational ship arrives, its passengers and crew will discover a thriving new colony already established.