Debunking Interstellar Travel: Separating Fact from Fiction

[mfb]

"Nuclear is not competitive with coal" - this means that an investor who decided to invest in building a powerplant would choose coal (or something else) over nuclear.

Yes, because coal power plant operators don't have to pay for the massive environmental damage they cause.

Anyway, my last post about this topic because it is not relevant to interstellar travel. No interstellar spacecraft will run with coal power plants.

 

[DrStupid]

You would need to be totally backs to the wall to swap living on Earth for the Risk and the boredom of a long (years and years or even generations) space voyage with no certainty of a good destination.

Somebody who already live in the Oort cloud for generations need to be totally backs to the wall to swap living in his space station for a life on a planet in the densely populated inner soar system. You must not infer the motivations of such a person from your personal preferences.

 

[sophiecentaur]

It is never about having the money - it is about the will to spend it.

Are you saying that there is no limit to resources? Money is equal to resources and too much extra spending would, as usual, lead to the less privileged having even worse lives. The US and the Soviets (now the Russians) have spent what they have on Space exploration at the expense of the poor of their countries. (I forgot to mention North Korea, which is only an extreme version of a poor population supporting a well fed elite). I know that the Keynsian view of economics tells us that spending and investment makes life 'better' for all but that only applies to a degree and to those who are already well off.

People would want to fly to other stars even if Earth and Solar System is in perfect shape and life there is okay.

There are already some nutty people who are falling over themselves to volunteer for a one way trip to Mars. They are not representative of the people who would be funding such a venture although there would be governments that would exploit such foolishness in the interests of scoring corporate points. Trips like that are not Scientific - they are ego trips. They are certainly not made for the benefit of our (or even their) descendants.

A lot of people on Earth find their life very boring. Work,home,work,home,work,home...

A lot of people, with boring existences, take holidays in places where they get a good dose of Earth - sea, sun and sand. OTOH, there are a lot of people whose lives are much worse than 'boring'. They don't have the chance of any relief from poverty and work work work (if lucky) or poverty with no work. They clearly don't count in any of the 'equations' that are drawn up to justify massive expense on Space exploration.
The passengers / crew of space journeys, lasting many years, would be little better than long term prisoners. The only way to deal with that sort of problem would be to spend the long years immersed in diversionary games or chemically induced oblivion.

Somebody who already live in the Oort cloud for generations need to be totally backs to the wall to swap living in his space station for a life on a planet in the densely populated inner soar system. You must not infer the motivations of such a person from your personal preferences.

They say you can get used to anything. I have a suspicion that you imagine that life in the Oort Cloud (on some large enough piece of rock) could somehow be made to suit a human who evolved over billions of years, to be suited to life on Earth. I do not understand why the whole exercise manages to attract people, once they have considered the whole possible scenario.
If Homo Sapiens could evolve into a different species - one with a body that could exist viably at very low gravity and would not tolerate the conditions on Earth and manage to provide itself with an environment consisting of similar living food sources then you could possibly have a workable system. But this would require even better management than 'just' terraforming a suitable host planet.

I think we do not need to "sort out the Earth" as it is. Our biggest problem is that most of Earth population is still living under tyrannical and/or kleptocratic governments, and thus have poor, dangerous and miserable lives. The West's efforts to improve the situation are half-hearted and often ineffective. However, I digress.

I really don't think you are digressing. Blaming "tyrannical governments" is a bit simplistic and reminds me of supporters of the second amendment. States with 'small government' are just as likely to be damaging the Earth due to Corporate greed. I really can't imagine how anyone who takes notice of the News, every day can think that we don't need to do any sorting out. Pollution (totally ignored in this thread, so far) is a worse problem than Energy shortages. Why would things be any different on a distant colony in that respect?

Edit: All the above issues were dealt with more than fifty years ago inc SciFi from Azimof, Olafson and AC Clarke but in stories in which it was assumed that time is not a problem - either in traveling or the development of societies.

 

[PeterDonis]

Thread closed for moderation.