NationStates Jolt Archive

Hey, I'm just curious about NSG's opinion. I believe that over the next few years, Earth will run out of critical space and resources. Not only that, but our civilization is dangerously exposed to catastrophes like global warming, asteroid impacts, etc. Colonization of space would provide the resources and space, as well as a haven for our civilization. There are many other reasons besides. Well? What does the rest of NSG think?

Mars is mine.

i already took the sun :p

Space is ballin'.

Yes, because it provides one of my favorite things: Cash and lots of it. Of course, there are other valuable things out there such as scientific knowledge and the thrill of discovery, but I'm more interested in the a numerals space exploration could add to my net worth. Other things can come later.

i don't see the point really. and it's not like we as a species are ethically and rationally mature enough yet to properly look after an environment we have to inhabit. if we have the option to just abuse an ecosystem and move on to the next we never will.

is it really an ecosystem? there's no life or environment up there to corrupt

Colonize Space?

Most definitely.

is it really an ecosystem? there's no life or environment up there to corrupt

depends how far your looking. i was interpreting your suggestion as looking at other stars. there's even less point in colonising the solar system.

i don't see the point really. and it's not like we as a species are ethically and rationally mature enough yet to properly look after an environment we have to inhabit. if we have the option to just abuse an ecosystem and move on to the next we never will.

Don't be so naive. If you use anything with metal in it, you're destroying the planet. We will eventually run out of resources, unless every single human dies tomorrow. It's not a matter of wanting to expand into space, we must.

I would love to live in space, simply because zero gravity sounds like one of the best things since sliced bread. realisticly, it's too expensive and at most we could have just a few hundred live up there, simply because of the energy requried to obtain orbit.

Don't be so naive. If you use anything with metal in it, you're destroying the planet. We will eventually run out of resources, unless every single human dies tomorrow. It's not a matter of wanting to expand into space, we must.

metallic elements don't suddenly cease to exist when the thing they are used to construct ceases to be of use.

metallic elements don't suddenly cease to exist when the thing they are used to construct ceases to be of use.

No, but they do cease to be useful, unless you've come up with an efficient and cost effective process to turn rust back into usable iron.

And if you have, Mars is literally one giant iron mine waiting to be tapped.

I really don't think we'll ever be able to. Besides, I don't see a point.

Ummm... I think it would rock, but I don't know that it would be much of a "safe haven for our civilization." Cultures are too broad, and new cultures would develop, creating super-titans and master-Chief's, which would then need Gordon Freeman (and unfortunately the G-man) to save mankind from hordes of creepy things... the end. Then again, maybe there would be some better games... like... Attack Earth because they are trying to tax us! hmmm...

We should go into space and colonize because we can. It's ours for the taking and space offers a vast amount of resources.

Yes, for several reasons.

The most important reason, and this is the one every scientist for the last 70 years has realized, is that it's incredibly dangerous to keep all your eggs in one basket so to speak.

There are so many disasters that could either wipe us and alot of other life out, or at least kill alot of it, that it's foolish to not expand outward, that way if something happens on Earth, there will be at least one viable back-up to help get things back to normal.

Secondly it opens up the door to discovery and technological development, and really pushes some things, like Fusion and better Solar power, which is one of the best candidates for deep-space travel, and once it develops, it will open up the door for us energy wise, such as switching to renewable and clean fuels, like Fusion power plants, which produce like a cup of nuclear waste a year (compared to the many barrels a modern Fission plant produces a day) as well as more efficient and powerful Solar power.

And thirdly, exploration is in our blood, we have explored the new various new worlds that have existed, be that Australia or the Americas, exploring literal new worlds is the next step.

If at all we can, we surely will. Now, whether that's due to the likes of China starting up a manned moon-base, future X-Prize-esque entrepreneurs cobbling together the ability to get to the asteroid belt or because scientists see The Next Dino-Killer coming and the finest of humanity are sent out of the way.

The caveats are:

Just because they (whichever one(s) are involved) try doesn't mean they'll succeed,
Even if they get off the ground properly and look like making it, human nature being what it is, it's possible that such missions would implode for sociopathic reasons, or just plain incompetence.
This isn't 'just around the corner' and the ISS isn't currently doing much good as the "first step" (or second, or third, or fourth, depending on whether you count various prior space missions).
It's entirely possible we get around to the whole idea of "wiping ourselves out" before we get there, or at least pushing ourselves back down the ages.


I'd like it to happen. I appreciate the technical problems. How it ends up happening is probably nothing like what we're thinking of. Roll-on the space elevators, that's what I say. :)

It boggles my mind as to how anybody could reject this idea as being a necessary long-term goal.

It boggles my mind as to how anybody could reject this idea as being a necessary long-term goal.

There are some people who wish mankind would fail and die off, so they hope for the failure of continued technological advancement and human expansion. It always bothered me how someone could be so pessimistic about our civilization when it has achieved so much.

yeah, seriously. space is our future

Not with our current tech level. In fifty years, it will definitely be possible. Fusion power is a necessity, as is cheap, reliable to-orbit transportation. Most likely, the first major colonization efforts will be Lagrange point colonies, most likely L5 or L4, since they are naturally stable. Of course, cheap interplanetary travel tech in the form of magneto-hydrodynamic propulsion will be necesary to achieve this.

So, in the end, it's possible, but I'd rather we focus our efforts in unfucking this planet before we turn to space.

A few flaws with space colonization in our time: money, money, and more money. It's fine to assume that researching this field would yield us results, but it won't be quick enough for the majority of us to get into space and colonize it. Additionally, what happens when we do get well enough to colonize? How will we replenish our resources anyways?

It always bothered me how someone could be so pessimistic about our civilization when it has achieved so much.

Holy Wars, the destruction of our environment, and lolcats?

i can has alpha sentarui

Holy Wars, the destruction of our environment, and lolcats?

Hey, 2/3 isn't that bad. Besides, you can't spell "environment" without "iron"...

i can has alpha sentarui

Oh God...

Alpha Centauri. Besides, Alpha Centauri isn't even the closest star to our solar system.

Proxima Centauri is.

Not gonna happen.

Were about 200 years away from having the tech needed for mass space colonization, and at best, we have about 100 years left before our planet is in serious climate peril.
Hell, the polar caps may be gone in less than 50, this means big coastal cities are hosed.

If it happens it will be in the nick of time.

Alpha Centauri. Besides, Alpha Centauri isn't even the closest star to our solar system.

Proxima Centauri is.

Which is actually a part of the Alpha Centauri system. Proxima is officially Alpha Centauri-C.

I think we should Colonized Space. At least Colonized the moon so we can use it as a launching pad for Space exploration. I want to see if other species from other planets actually visit us.

Were about 200 years away from having the tech needed for mass space colonization, and at best, we have about 100 years left before our planet is in serious climate peril.

Hell, the polar caps may be gone in less than 50, this means big coastal cities are hosed.

I doubt that would really impact space technology, though. Even if major coastal cities are forced to relocate, it wouldn't be the end of the world; a major disruption, sure, but there are some positives along with the melting that will help offset it. And I'm pretty skeptical that current trends will last; already there's a lot of momentum building behind efforts to keep the human effects on global warming under control, so it's highly unlikely that current conditions will last for much longer.

I doubt that would really impact space technology, though. Even if major coastal cities are forced to relocate, it wouldn't be the end of the world; a major disruption, sure, but there are some positives along with the melting that will help offset it. And I'm pretty skeptical that current trends will last; already there's a lot of momentum building behind efforts to keep the human effects on global warming under control, so it's highly unlikely that current conditions will last for much longer.

I think its the rate of the change that is so alarming.
It may already be too late to reverse much of the damage.
Flooding costal cities will result in about a billion people dead, with even more relocated.
Remember that world financial centers are in coastal cities.

Nothing excessive will happen for the positive until we run out of oil, and a cleaner cheaper fuel will be utilized.
Revamping an entire nations infrastructure, converting all systems from oil, to something else, in less than 50 years?

Not likely to happen while theres profit to be made from oil.

no,
because we are running out of resources and it will only use up more
in the search of the great big empty

what the heck is:

ROFLCOPTER

I think its the rate of the change that is so alarming. It may already be too late to reverse much of the damage. Flooding costal cities will result in about a billion people dead, with even more relocated.

Only if the cities suddenly flood and people don't escape in time; however, I think there will be a lot of warning signs beforehand. However, the Third World would be vulnerable and I think that's where almost all of the deaths would occur.

However, I agree that the bulk of the damage is already in place. The main thing we can do now is delay it; rising ocean levels over 200 years is a lot more manageable than, say, 100 or 50. The events themselves have already been put in to place; now the goal is to control the damage if and when we can.

Remember that world financial centers are in coastal cities.

In the global economy, the physical locations of those facilities aren't really that important. They could be relocated if necessary.

Nothing excessive will happen for the positive until we run out of oil, and a cleaner cheaper fuel will be utilized. Revamping an entire nations infrastructure, converting all systems from oil, to something else, in less than 50 years?

Not likely to happen while theres profit to be made from oil.

Interestingly, oil profit margins aren't really doing very well; even though the price of oil is rising, the cost of producing it is rising faster and eating away at margins. Really, other than ExxonMobil (whose oil/gas reserves are bigger than others and so they need to diversify less), most oil companies are already making plans for a post-oil future.

However, as you know, the problem is that those emissions are still going in to the atmosphere and will affect the climate for a while after their sources are gone.

No. We've already overpopulated and drained the earth of most of it's resources. Call me a cynic, but we aren't going to do anything different on any other planet. Why continue the cycle? We should focus our energies on fixing the problems on earth first; making our policies more sustainable, making attempts to control disease, educating the population, etcetera. If we colonize space, we wouldn't solve anything for the long-term.

No. We've already overpopulated and drained the earth of most of it's resources. Call me a cynic, but we aren't going to do anything different on any other planet. Why continue the cycle? We should focus our energies on fixing the problems on earth first; making our policies more sustainable, making attempts to control disease, educating the population, etcetera. If we colonize space, we wouldn't solve anything for the long-term.

I think they really are one and the same. The kinds of technologies needed to support our expansion in to space are the same that can be applied to save the Earth. In fact, those technologies should be developed for Earth first and then applied to space. It would be a terrible evil to allow our home to die while we move on in an endless quest for new resources. Earth is our home, and we have a duty to take care of it...anything less would be a terible wrong.

Due to global warming, i see vast underwater cities being the next step, possibly by the year 2021 ;)

Alpha Centauri. Besides, Alpha Centauri isn't even the closest star to our solar system.

Proxima Centauri is.

Yeah, but isn't it a trinary system anyway? Plus, Proxima Centauri is a red dwarf, right? Hardly going to be capable of having much in the way of habitable planets.

Only if the cities suddenly flood and people don't escape in time; however, I think there will be a lot of warning signs beforehand. However, the Third World would be vulnerable and I think that's where almost all of the deaths would occur.

Im a bit more skeptical.
Look at how much trouble we had evacuating New Orleans, during Katrina.

Now imagine having to evacuate New York, San Francisco, Miami, etc, all at once.

Im a bit more skeptical.
Look at how much trouble we had evacuating New Orleans, during Katrina.

Now imagine having to evacuate New York, San Francisco, Miami, etc, all at once.

You're right, of course. As much as we claim to have evacuation plans, we really don't, at least not plans that are top notch quality. Those plans we do have tend to rely upon the National Guard, equipment, and personnel that just aren't available right now thanks to a certain dipshit.

Colonize space? Most definitely...

Because of the new technology and knowledge it will bring.
Which could very well help us "save" the world.
Just look at all the things that came from the last big space race.
If it doesn't end up patented,copyrighted and used for profit that is.

And it will happen, no doubt about it, partly because states and corporations are going to seek new resources and cheaper locations,environments.
But mostly because exploration is in our blood,
and we practically long to "explore strange new worlds, to seek out new life and new civilizations, and to boldly go where no one has gone before". ;)

We will also require more territory to expand into as a species.
And might we not do better if starting over from scratch?
Just like virus, we consume one place and multiply,
then move on to the next one.
However, for those intending to use that a phrase in a cynical way,
we, unlike virus, have the ability to learn from our mistakes and rectify them.

And lastly...because I have always wanted to take a starship and just go out into the universe and explore, see what lies beyond. :D

it might be good. for a while. eventually.

but making an afordable way out of earth's gravity well, daunting as that may be, it NOT the BIGGEST obstical.

there's the little matter of PRODUCING our breathing mixture, which generally involves an entire functioning eco-system. something we haven't yet aggreed to stop destroying the one we have.

global warming isn't a reason to not go there, but it is indicative of the REAL challange doing so will involve.

before we can terraform mars, or asteroids, or planimals, or build whole world tin cans, we have to figgure out how to stop marsiforming them, as we are currently doing to our one earth that so far we've got.

yes it would be nice to have a spare or two. yes it would be nice to be able to keep breeding like rabbits and at the same time extending our lifespan. but there is this one little practical reality that there is no way out of having to face, having to learn to face, having to learn to accept having to face and deal with. wherever we go, even whether we ever get to anyplace beyond this earth to homestead or not.

=^^=
.../\...

It just doesn't seem like a good idea to keep all your basketcases on the same egg..

Yeah, but isn't it a trinary system anyway? Plus, Proxima Centauri is a red dwarf, right? Hardly going to be capable of having much in the way of habitable planets.

Yes, Proxima is part of the Alpha Centauri system (it's more properly called Alpha Centauri C).

Yes, for several reasons.

The most important reason, and this is the one every scientist for the last 70 years has realized, is that it's incredibly dangerous to keep all your eggs in one basket so to speak.

There are so many disasters that could either wipe us and alot of other life out, or at least kill alot of it, that it's foolish to not expand outward, that way if something happens on Earth, there will be at least one viable back-up to help get things back to normal.

Secondly it opens up the door to discovery and technological development, and really pushes some things, like Fusion and better Solar power, which is one of the best candidates for deep-space travel, and once it develops, it will open up the door for us energy wise, such as switching to renewable and clean fuels, like Fusion power plants, which produce like a cup of nuclear waste a year (compared to the many barrels a modern Fission plant produces a day) as well as more efficient and powerful Solar power.

And thirdly, exploration is in our blood, we have explored the new various new worlds that have existed, be that Australia or the Americas, exploring literal new worlds is the next step.


Your reasons are spot on and I totaly agree with you. Except I'd switch your first and second reasons around.

There are some people who wish mankind would fail and die off, so they hope for the failure of continued technological advancement and human expansion. It always bothered me how someone could be so pessimistic about our civilization when it has achieved so much.

I don't wish for mankind to die of, I just think that it's very likely. Also you're thinking of cynicism.

Pessimism - Something will go wrong.
Cynicism - Humans will f*** it up somehow.

For the record if something goes wrong I'd rather not have a vacuum and a distance measured in light-years between me and help.

Yeah, but isn't it a trinary system anyway? Plus, Proxima Centauri is a red dwarf, right? Hardly going to be capable of having much in the way of habitable planets.

Proxima Centauri doesn't really matter does it? If there are any planets near it they'll be part of the Alpha Centauri system so it doesn't matter which of the three stars is closer.

Should colonize space? Uhh, maybe. I don't think we'll ever reach that point.
I know I wouldn't leave Earth because Earth is my home.

I know I wouldn't leave Earth because Earth is my home.

What if it was a flaming radioactive wreck? Would you stay on a sinking ship?

What if it was a flaming radioactive wreck? Would you stay on a sinking ship?

If the earth was a radioactive wreck I might leave.

Now, I might stay on a sinking ship if it meant saving women and children's lives. I would have staying on the titanic as there weren't enough boats for even the women and children.

If the earth was a radioactive wreck I might leave.

Now, I might stay on a sinking ship if it meant saving women and children's lives. I would have staying on the titanic as there weren't enough boats for even the women and children.

How heroic... Your hypothetical sacrifice will truly be felt throughout human history. :D

Seriously. I'm personally optimistic about the eventual colonisation of space. In order to do so, I propose the establishment of a UN Space Agency to unite the resources of all national space agencies in order to advance the international effort to establish a permanent human population in space.

How heroic... Your hypothetical sacrifice will truly be felt throughout human history. :D

Seriously. I'm personally optimistic about the eventual colonisation of space. In order to do so, I propose the establishment of a UN Space Agency to unite the resources of all national space agencies in order to advance the international effort to establish a permanent human population in space.

I'd rather have an American colony in space. Screw all that international stuff.

Now, I might stay on a sinking ship if it meant saving women and children's lives. I would have staying on the titanic as there weren't enough boats for even the women and children.

I was going to write a nice response to this. But then I read the below post and all the respect you gained in the last half an hour disappeared. So here's my new response:-

They would have forced you to give way for women and children whether you wanted to or not.

I'd rather have an American colony in space. Screw all that international stuff.

I was going to write a nice response to this. But then I read the below post and all the respect you gained in the last half an hour disappeared. So here's my new response:-

They would have forced you to give way for women and children whether you wanted to or not.

haha. Sorry, my patriotism dies hard.

I'd rather have an American colony in space. Screw all that international stuff.

Oh wouldn't that be fun. Good luck creating a strictly American colony anytime soon without the plentiful resources that'd be available to you under a truly international space program.

Hey, that's an idea. How about we give ourselves another excuse to start another world war when Russia, the US and China inevitably argue about the colonization of the moon, when thier own seperate colonization missions collide.

Even better, let's have our own seperate national colonies fight each other in space! It'll be like Gundam!

Oh wouldn't that be fun. Good luck creating a strictly American colony anytime soon without the plentiful resources that'd be available to you under a truly international space program.

Hey, that's an idea. How about we give ourselves another excuse to start another world war when Russia, the US and China inevitably argue about the colonization of the moon, when thier own seperate colonization missions collide.

Even better, let's have our own seperate national colonies fight each other in space! It'll be like Gundam!

Hey now, others would be welcome to the colony after a while. I was thinking more along the lines of America creating one first, and getting it off the ground. Just to reaffirm are numero uno status in space.

Hey now, others would be welcome to the colony after a while. I was thinking more along the lines of America creating one first, and getting it off the ground. Just to reaffirm are numero uno status in space.

Ah I see. Even then I'd have to firmly disagree with you. I'd much rather see an International space colony be swiftly developed and launched using the combined experience and resources of the combined national space agencies than allow America to plod along unilaterally in an attempt to simply be able to say "we did it first".

It would be in the best interests of the US to cooperate.

Ah I see. Even then I'd have to firmly disagree with you. I'd much rather see an International space colony be swiftly developed and launched using the combined experience and resources of the combined national space agencies than allow America to plod along unilaterally in an attempt to simply be able to say "we did it first".

It would be in the best interests of the US to cooperate.

Why should we cooperate? If we can do it ourselves, we should.

I'm not a big fan of internationalism and cooperation. I much prefer isolationism and 'leave us the fuck alone, and we'll leave you alone attitude'.

Why should we cooperate? If we can do it ourselves, we should.

I'm not a big fan of internationalism and cooperation. I much prefer isolationism and 'leave us the fuck alone, and we'll leave you alone attitude'.

You probably could do it. Eventually. That's my point.

International cooperation, indeed cooperation of any sort, more often than not increases the rate at which projects are completed, and thier final quality.

America and other nations may be able to produce thier own colonies unilaterally, but I don't think they'd produce them faster than an international space project could.

Wouldn't the pooling of material and academic resources be a significant advantage? I think such an advantage would be more in the interests of the American people than simply being given the chance of declaring themselves to be the first nation to set up a colony.

You probably could do it. Eventually. That's my point.

International cooperation, indeed cooperation of any sort, more often than not increases the rate at which projects are completed, and thier final quality.

America and other nations may be able to produce thier own colonies unilaterally, but I don't think they'd produce them faster than an international space project could.

Wouldn't the pooling of material and academic resources be a significant advantage? I think such an advantage would be more in the interests of the American people than simply being given the chance of declaring themselves to be the first nation to set up a colony.

Possibly. But being the first would be awesome.
I still don't see why someone, or a country, should get help when they can do something themselves. Depending on others is weakness.

I still don't see why someone, or a country, should get help when they can do something themselves.It's cheaper, you can share expertise, it strengthens relations, etc

Depending on others is weakness.So is a pathological inability to cooperate with others for fear of seeming dependent upon them. I'm sure there's some middle ground where you can work together on a fairly equal basis, i.e. without feeling dependent.

It's not a matter of depending on someone else; it's just that like with sex, it's more satisfying when you do it together with someone else ;)

Possibly. But being the first would be awesome.
I still don't see why someone, or a country, should get help when they can do something themselves. Depending on others is weakness.

So I take it you built this computer with your bare hands?

Yes, we must colonize space, and I believe the Ays have it.
1. It has been one of our long term goals.
2. We have dreamed and planed of it for so long.
3. The Earth is too much with us/ The more people off this rock the better.
4. Costs will go down as space elevators go up.
5. As the only known sapient life forms with the skills to travel into space it is our responsibility and dept to spread life beyond Earth.
6. It would be such a waste of space not to.

To whom of you that worry about the cost, or the time and effort it may take; I ask you what will be the the cost if we remain complacent? We can try to save the Earth for as long as we can, but ultimately it is just one planet with an expiration date. If we do not try now, then tomorrow may be to late. Life is messy, no one is arguing that, and humans have done so many terrible things. However, if we don't try, if we don't hope, if we don't overcome obstacles, if we don't explore, complain about the cost, and we just give up... we stop being what it means to be human. We are flawed things but our flaws pale to what we can achieve.

Unfortunately, the USA and Canada are swiftly being booted out of this space race, and I fear the EU is also losing ground. The next fifty years will clearly belong to China and India. I only know three words in Hindi, and none in Mandarin or Cantonese, so I am a fan of multilateral efforts through which everyone can gain from extraterrestrial exploration.

Unfortunately, the USA and Canada are swiftly being booted out of this space race, and I fear the EU is also losing ground. The next fifty years will clearly belong to China and India. I only know three words in Hindi, and none in Mandarin or Cantonese, so I am a fan of multilateral efforts through which everyone can gain from extraterrestrial exploration.

Namaste doesn't count. :p

Possibly. But being the first would be awesome.
I still don't see why someone, or a country, should get help when they can do something themselves. Depending on others is weakness.

No man is an island. Unless you want to live on a planet all on your own, then you're going to be dependant on other people, weakness or not. Even then you'd be dependant whatever plants, animals and water sources you used to sustain yourself.

Oh, and on topic: if we can colonise space, we should.

Yes for economic reasons, no for living space.

Oh, and on topic: if we can colonise space, we should.

We can kill everyone on the planet. Should we?

I know, I know, but I'm just saying that using the fact that we can do something to mean we should do something is faulty logic.

Maybe there are profits to be had in space in the future, but I'll probably be long dead before those profits are gained. Also, even if I was around it's unlikely that I'd see a penny of it anyway. Besides, it will probably be China that gets most of it anyway, not Britain. If Britain was able to go for its own indiginous space program, without reliance on anyone else and (Sometime in the probably fairly distant future) colonise space then I would feel differently. But we're never going to be a position to do that so it seems like a waste of money.

We are talking about a generation ship here. As FTL travel is not going to happen the only other option would be sleeper ships. But most likely it would be a generation ship. It would have to be self suficient for CENTURIES or even MELLENIA. What would happen if the people forgot their mission and became savages? Or if the ship didnt last? The only way I think it could happen is if the human lifespan incrases by centuries and we could go into hybernation(and obviously the ship didnt break).

We are talking about a generation ship here. As FTL travel is not going to happen the only other option would be sleeper ships. But most likely it would be a generation ship. It would have to be self suficient for CENTURIES or even MELLENIA. What would happen if the people forgot their mission and became savages? Or if the ship didnt last? The only way I think it could happen is if the human lifespan incrases by centuries and we could go into hybernation(and obviously the ship didnt break).

Faster-than-light travel is most certainly possible. We've yet to develop a means, of course, but I'm certain we will. It's only a matter of time. The sheer usefulness of a faster-than-light engine is so massive...it would probably be the single most important invention in the history of humanity.

We should colanize space. If we used similar international regulations to those regarding Antarctica, we could avoid conflict. Once we established space bases, the price of additional explanation and expansion would drasticly drop. It is the way of the future.

We are talking about a generation ship here. As FTL travel is not going to happen the only other option would be sleeper ships. But most likely it would be a generation ship. It would have to be self suficient for CENTURIES or even MELLENIA. What would happen if the people forgot their mission and became savages? Or if the ship didnt last? The only way I think it could happen is if the human lifespan incrases by centuries and we could go into hybernation(and obviously the ship didnt break).

Faster-than-light travel is most certainly possible. We've yet to develop a means, of course, but I'm certain we will. It's only a matter of time. The sheer usefulness of a faster-than-light engine is so massive...it would probably be the single most important invention in the history of humanity.

We have theories on how to do it already. We just don't understand gravity enough to utilise them.

We have theories on how to do it already. We just don't understand gravity enough to utilise them.

Not to mention we lack appropriate materials for such a spacecraft as well as necessary energy sources. What are the theories anyway? I'm aware of the Alcubierre(that's how you spell it, right?) drive, but not any others.

Governments should not colonize space or form themselves in space. However, if it is profitable to create space colonies, then businessmen should start space colonies.

Not to mention we lack appropriate materials for such a spacecraft as well as necessary energy sources. What are the theories anyway? I'm aware of the Alcubierre(that's how you spell it, right?) drive, but not any others.

Artificial wormholes are another. It requires some of the same advances as the Alcubierre, but I'm not sure which would be easier. Holes have the problem that you have to open them in the first place, Alcubierre has the problem that you have to create a field that moves with the ship rather than existing as a separate entity.

Artificial wormholes are another. It requires some of the same advances as the Alcubierre, but I'm not sure which would be easier. Holes have the problem that you have to open them in the first place, Alcubierre has the problem that you have to create a field that moves with the ship rather than existing as a separate entity.

Isn't there also a problem of time dilation with a wormhole?

Isn't there also a problem of time dilation with a wormhole?

There's a problem with time dilation with any FTL. FTL = time travel. We give up causality if we travel faster than information, i.e., light.

There's a problem with time dilation with any FTL. FTL = time travel. We give up causality if we travel faster than information, i.e., light.

We do? There's no way around it?

We do? There's no way around it?

I have no idea. Theoretical physics is beyond me. Knowing human ingenuity though, there probably is.

I have no idea. Theoretical physics is beyond me. Knowing human ingenuity though, there probably is.

There had better be, or else FTL travel wouldn't be as useful as it might seem. With causality thrown out the window you could never hold an interstellar...nation? empire? Federation?...together.

Which reminds me...do we have any theories as of yet for FTL communications?

Isn't there also a problem of time dilation with a wormhole?

There's a problem with time dilation with any FTL. FTL = time travel. We give up causality if we travel faster than information, i.e., light.

I'm not too clued-up on the effects of FTL on time, but time dilation is a relativistic effect you get in slower-than-light travel as you approach c. The faster you are, the more dilated time becomes, so if you assume that this can simply be extrapolated for FTL, then you might get a backwards-time effect.

However, two thoughts:

1. I don't think we should assume we can simply apply the same principle, as FTL isn't literally 'moving faster', it's more a case of going around the problem by moving without moving.

2. If time did go backwards, I don't think you'd actually get 'time travel', I think you'd just experience your journey in reverse.

I'm not too clued-up on the effects of FTL on time, but time dilation is a relativistic effect you get in slower-than-light travel as you approach c. The faster you are, the more dilated time becomes, so if you assume that this can simply be extrapolated for FTL, then you might get a backwards-time effect.

However, two thoughts:

1. I don't think we should assume we can simply apply the same principle, as FTL isn't literally 'moving faster', it's more a case of going around the problem by moving without moving.

2. If time did go backwards, I don't think you'd actually get 'time travel', I think you'd just experience your journey in reverse.

Well, it's my understanding that FTL of any kind violates causality, because you'll arrive before you appear to have done so. Take this for example:

I travel at FTL towards a planet. That planet does not see me coming, because any light reflected from me is travelling slower than me. From their POV, I appear to pop out of thin air. Later, the light that was reflected arrives. I have, relativisitically, travelled forward in time, because time itself is simply the flow of information and is regulated by c.

Well, it's my understanding that FTL of any kind violates causality, because you'll arrive before you appear to have done so. Take this for example:

I travel at FTL towards a planet. That planet does not see me coming, because any light reflected from me is travelling slower than me. From their POV, I appear to pop out of thin air. Later, the light that was reflected arrives. I have, relativisitically, travelled forward in time, because time itself is simply the flow of information and is regulated by c.

My first point was that you're not not literally moving FTL. If you used a wormhole, you would just be taking a shortcut. If you used an alcubierre, you would be expanding and collapsing space around you while you ship in fact has no kinetic energy at all. I don't know how much people would be able to see of your ship anyway, since the warping of space-time created by the Alcubierre drive would probably have a big effect on the light passing through it.

its common sense to colonize space.

bumbling into this thread I think we should maybe try and fix this planet before we go about wrecking the cosmos

odds are we could save a few bob :)

Isn't there also a problem of time dilation with a wormhole?Well... there might be, based upon the curvature of space-time at the lip of the wormhole, the science is a bit vague on that point, but I'm wondering if you're thinking of the "wormhole meets Twins Paradox" effect.

i.e. create a wormhole between two points in a convenient wormhole-friendly lab, not very far apart. Shove something into one end of the wormhole and it appears from the other end, taking only as long as it needed to traverse the wormhole-length. Keep end 'A' in the lab and 'Grab' one of the ends of the 'B' end of the wormhole and send it on a long-enough, fast-enough trip to induce time dilation (i.e. its time passes slower relative to its 'stationary' twin) before bringing it back again. Now shove something into 'A' at time T1 and... wait... Because if T0 is the last time they were both in synch, end 'B' isn't at it's own personal time T1 yet, having slowed down a bit in its trip. T1(B) = T1(A) + T(AB)dif
Even better though, what if you were to shove something into 'B' at time T2(B)? Well, that would be interesting, because it would come out of 'A' at T2(A). And T2(B) = T1(A) + T(AB)dif. Which means it will have already come out of 'A', at a point of time T(AB)dif before you put it in 'B'... :)

Then you can do interesting things such as see if you can set up a pool-shot so that the ball you send into the pocket above 'B' can be/needs to be deflected by the same ball already having dropped out of 'A' onto the table..:)

(Personally, I think there are much more interesting things to do with a wormhole pair, such as put one end over the top of another and let things perpetually drop through the intervening space. :cool:)