Project Hyperion: Interstellar ship design competition(projecthyperion.org)
projecthyperion.org
Project Hyperion: Interstellar ship design competition
https://www.projecthyperion.org
329 comments
It was indeed incredible. Battled out in a pan Asia round, won it, and got invited to the ISSDC at the Kennedy Space Center in Florida. Felt so fortunate learning from engineers at Boeing and NASA. Incredible experience for a 15yo kid from India.
Coincidentally, it has been exactly 10 years since and my photos app resurfaced some of the memories. Good times.
Coincidentally, it has been exactly 10 years since and my photos app resurfaced some of the memories. Good times.
Another ISSDC alum here, but from a little more than a decade earlier. It really was a unique experience. I remember the finals at Kennedy Space Center fully exercised the extent of your mental and physical stamina both. It also delivered lots of surprisingly applicable lessons for startup life around coordinating technical teams in high-stress, high-stakes environments.
> This new competition seems like its goal is to actually take the design/ideation of working professionals as a serious output
While it’s interesting, the only things that sell trips to space are cheap ways to get additional resources (information or materials), steady flows of income (from recurring tourism, travel, services), or war/defense.
Long, expensive one-way trips that require incredible amounts of money to pull off will never, ever make business sense.
The only reason explorers were funded hundreds of years ago was the promise of vast amounts of gold, magical life-extending water, mysterious new jewels and materials, wild native art, new sources of food, beautiful mostly naked natives that would look to you as gods and be your slaves willingly, and a shitton of fertile land to farm and colonize; and it must benefit the homeland within a reasonable time period, preferably not more than a year or two.
While it’s interesting, the only things that sell trips to space are cheap ways to get additional resources (information or materials), steady flows of income (from recurring tourism, travel, services), or war/defense.
Long, expensive one-way trips that require incredible amounts of money to pull off will never, ever make business sense.
The only reason explorers were funded hundreds of years ago was the promise of vast amounts of gold, magical life-extending water, mysterious new jewels and materials, wild native art, new sources of food, beautiful mostly naked natives that would look to you as gods and be your slaves willingly, and a shitton of fertile land to farm and colonize; and it must benefit the homeland within a reasonable time period, preferably not more than a year or two.
[deleted]
Link to Canva presentation for the winning entry
https://www.canva.com/design/DAGmr3ubC8E/LHHAeeAIGGQe_TkZVs-...
https://www.canva.com/design/DAGmr3ubC8E/LHHAeeAIGGQe_TkZVs-...
Cool concept, but some things are just strange:
Power provided by toroidal nuclear fusion reactors in the outer shell of the living module, but why do you need such reactors if your primary propulsion is provided by Helium 3 - Deuterium Direct Fusion Drive? If you have direct fusion technology, you don't need toroidal reactors.
Rotating inner shells mechanically for 400 years is terrible design, it's much easier just to rotate entire structure. Once it's going it keeps rotating inertially!
Another comment points to error in speed calculation - at declared acceleration they should go at 0.1c, not 0.01c!
And what is missing of course is the calculation of how many years of current world's GDP is required to complete such project event if all yet-to-be invented technologies exist.
Power provided by toroidal nuclear fusion reactors in the outer shell of the living module, but why do you need such reactors if your primary propulsion is provided by Helium 3 - Deuterium Direct Fusion Drive? If you have direct fusion technology, you don't need toroidal reactors.
Rotating inner shells mechanically for 400 years is terrible design, it's much easier just to rotate entire structure. Once it's going it keeps rotating inertially!
Another comment points to error in speed calculation - at declared acceleration they should go at 0.1c, not 0.01c!
And what is missing of course is the calculation of how many years of current world's GDP is required to complete such project event if all yet-to-be invented technologies exist.
If you would spin the whole structure you couldn't have multiple shells all with 1G on their surface. The required spin speed for 1G depends on the diameter. But their whole concept is built around multiple shells, which is clear from the name.
Regarding the GDP needed once you have a working "mine from the moon and send to orbit" economy it doesn't seem to be too bad. The assumption would be that a lot of technology is already developed for other projects. Launching it all from earth obviously wouldn't be possible even with vastly cheaper launch. That's why they put the build into the moon-earth L1 lagrange point to be easily reachable from the moon.
For propulsion and reactors, but there are multiple projects today working on all of this. Building a life support system for 400 years is still an unsolved problem however.
Regarding the GDP needed once you have a working "mine from the moon and send to orbit" economy it doesn't seem to be too bad. The assumption would be that a lot of technology is already developed for other projects. Launching it all from earth obviously wouldn't be possible even with vastly cheaper launch. That's why they put the build into the moon-earth L1 lagrange point to be easily reachable from the moon.
For propulsion and reactors, but there are multiple projects today working on all of this. Building a life support system for 400 years is still an unsolved problem however.
Re: orbital assembly. L1 point is bad in every respect. If most materials come from Moon, then the best assembly point is low Moon orbit (as benefit you get a boot to your launch speed to escape Earth gravity), if most material comes from Earth, then best assembly point is low Earth orbit. Hauling all material to L1 is going to be more expensive in either case (unless the ratio of materials is very exact, which is unlikely).
Re: spin. I still claim that the best design is to rotate entire living module as one. Most of the activity is going to be on the outer shell. Warehouses, etc will be in the lower gravity inside. No moving parts.
The only question is what to do with fuel and retro engines. Rotate them as well? Fuel tanks need to be stronger. Do not rotate? Then maybe living module can undock for the flight and rotate separately.
Re: spin. I still claim that the best design is to rotate entire living module as one. Most of the activity is going to be on the outer shell. Warehouses, etc will be in the lower gravity inside. No moving parts.
The only question is what to do with fuel and retro engines. Rotate them as well? Fuel tanks need to be stronger. Do not rotate? Then maybe living module can undock for the flight and rotate separately.
Belts and suspenders?
These are supposed to be generational ships. Now imagine you need to take the primary drive down for maintenance? What does the moving colony have for power?
I'd want tri-redundant systems at a least, for everything.
These are supposed to be generational ships. Now imagine you need to take the primary drive down for maintenance? What does the moving colony have for power?
I'd want tri-redundant systems at a least, for everything.
I'd want tri-redundant systems at a least, for everything, and zero gears to keep the rotation of the concentrical shells at the correct speed.
My washing mashine self destructed a few times. I don't want to put my children inside one for 400 years.
My washing mashine self destructed a few times. I don't want to put my children inside one for 400 years.
> I don't want to put my children inside one for 400 years.
I'm sure every parent has thought the opposite at least once.
I'm sure every parent has thought the opposite at least once.
Your washing machine probably used cheap nylon gears which self destructed. There are windmills older than 400 years old that still operate today despite using gears :)
This is false example - these windmills are actively maintained and repaired, how are you going to replace massive gears or bearings in space? Are you going to bring spare parts with you?
No, you will bring manufacturing capabilities with you. Decently sized warships carry a machine shop for a reason. A generation ship will have to be totally self sufficient, this will include not just food, air and water but also being able to manufacture pretty much anything they might need.
You mean wood gears like in https://www.alamy.com/gears-of-a-windmill-image245974580.htm... ?
I guess they were replaced a few times during the non harvesting season.
To replace the main gears of a rotating shell in space, you must "turn off" gravity for a week (or month).
I guess they were replaced a few times during the non harvesting season.
To replace the main gears of a rotating shell in space, you must "turn off" gravity for a week (or month).
My point is more narrow: if you have magical "direct fusion" technology (which is used in the main engines, as presentation says), you don't need regular toroidal nuclear fusion reactors, just use multiple redundant "direct fusion reactors". Which in turn are going to be more compact and don't need to be built as huge toruses around main cylinder.
Reading through this in detail just cements that we are never leaving this solar system unless we discover some new physics to get around our speed limitations.
> we are never leaving this solar system unless we discover some new physics to get around our speed limitations
The winning proposal coasts at 0.01c. Propulsion systems--not the speed of light--and thus engineering, not phsyics, are the relevant limitors.
The winning proposal coasts at 0.01c. Propulsion systems--not the speed of light--and thus engineering, not phsyics, are the relevant limitors.
I am increasingly certain that culture is by far the biggest limiting factor when it comes to large-scale problem solving now and in the future.
We couldn't even reliably get people to put a piece of fabric over their face to stop killing their own relatives. Even if we could build a generation ship, it would turn into an Event Horizon hellscape if we don't figure out better cultural, communication, and sociological tools to enable us to get along and work together effectively.
We couldn't even reliably get people to put a piece of fabric over their face to stop killing their own relatives. Even if we could build a generation ship, it would turn into an Event Horizon hellscape if we don't figure out better cultural, communication, and sociological tools to enable us to get along and work together effectively.
> We couldn't even reliably get people to put a piece of fabric over their face
Rural Americans couldn’t. But I don’t see anyone proposing we put high school dropouts and polio patients in space.
China, India and Japan managed to pass that test just fine. I imagine one of the former two will be the first to colonise deep space.
Rural Americans couldn’t. But I don’t see anyone proposing we put high school dropouts and polio patients in space.
China, India and Japan managed to pass that test just fine. I imagine one of the former two will be the first to colonise deep space.
Urban Europeans had just as much trouble (speaking as one).
"Europeans" is kinda broad brush. Norwegians around me had little trouble following the safety instructions.
Still not sold though that the cohesion in an small, resource constrained, artificial community can hold over a few generations. Huge risks of it degrading into some cult/dictatorship.
Still not sold though that the cohesion in an small, resource constrained, artificial community can hold over a few generations. Huge risks of it degrading into some cult/dictatorship.
I don't see why smaller societies should not be able to thrive. My grandparents said once that back in the day you could identify what rural village someone was from by their accent. Meaning populations inside of villages changed very little. And most of these villages did just fine with populations as low as 200.
They all existed within the greater (regional, national) social context. There still was freedom of movement even if at much greater cost. There were avenues for delinquents and outcasts to seek fortunes in the cities or even overseas. There was no overarching purpose imposed on their life other than the religion.
This is not to say that generation ship societies are doomed to fail but chances are decent.
This is not to say that generation ship societies are doomed to fail but chances are decent.
The real question is what stops them from declaring independence and cutting ties with Earth. Especially after generations of people? They'd need strong ... propaganda, for lack of a better word.
Maybe that's why they seperate the ship into 5 indendent areas, each 480 people. So that at least one culture will survive for 400 years.
> Rural Americans couldn’t.
One of the primary causes of our cultural disfunction is our seemingly intrinsic compulsion to separate ourselves into groups of Us and Them, and have no limit to the amount of disparaging, scorn, and dehumanization we are willing to dump onto Them.
One of the primary causes of our cultural disfunction is our seemingly intrinsic compulsion to separate ourselves into groups of Us and Them, and have no limit to the amount of disparaging, scorn, and dehumanization we are willing to dump onto Them.
>> kill their relatives
> Rural Americans > high school dropouts
Lol HN you really are too much sometimes.
Covid went really well in all the intellectual bastions of liberal democracy right? NYC, SF? California famously no downsides from their policy choices at all.
And then to top it off, you compare response to China - the government that lied through it's teeth about covid from the beginning, jailed journalists and destroyed evidence.
Unreal
> Rural Americans > high school dropouts
Lol HN you really are too much sometimes.
Covid went really well in all the intellectual bastions of liberal democracy right? NYC, SF? California famously no downsides from their policy choices at all.
And then to top it off, you compare response to China - the government that lied through it's teeth about covid from the beginning, jailed journalists and destroyed evidence.
Unreal
Oh, nobody managed Covid well. The question was capacity to sacrifice for the common good.
New York is a bad example to call out since it was one of the first places to get hit, locked down hard after a delay, and yet came out with lower per-capita deaths and a stronger economy than most red states. (Speaking as someone who lives in one of the reddest states in the union.)
> jailed journalists and destroyed evidence
Not sure we can call anyone out on this anymore.
New York is a bad example to call out since it was one of the first places to get hit, locked down hard after a delay, and yet came out with lower per-capita deaths and a stronger economy than most red states. (Speaking as someone who lives in one of the reddest states in the union.)
> jailed journalists and destroyed evidence
Not sure we can call anyone out on this anymore.
The question is not "Would a randomly selected demographic be a good pool for this mission"
The question is "Could we create a cadre of 400 highly effective people that could sustain a colony on a spaceship.
I argue the answer to the first is "No" for any demographic but the answer to the second is a clear "Yes".
The question is "Could we create a cadre of 400 highly effective people that could sustain a colony on a spaceship.
I argue the answer to the first is "No" for any demographic but the answer to the second is a clear "Yes".
Maybe the issue is that people assume that a randomly selected population would consist of US citizens. What if you picked Japanese? They did well during covid. An they are know for having a strong communal responsibility. Maybe the average US citizen is just a bad choice for a generation ship? Then again given the choice between sending foreign citizen's or sending no generation ship would probably result in no generation ship bring launched.
People from latin america might be a good match - last time the fleet of generation ships not only reached the destination in sufficient number, but one of them even ahead of schedule[0]!
[0] https://revelationspace.fandom.com/wiki/Sky_Haussmann
[0] https://revelationspace.fandom.com/wiki/Sky_Haussmann
> The question is "Could we create a cadre of 400 highly effective people that could sustain a colony on a spaceship?"
For a generational ship, the question becomes even more complex because you would have to build a culture of expertise that can sustain itself over multiple generations.
For a generational ship, the question becomes even more complex because you would have to build a culture of expertise that can sustain itself over multiple generations.
> The question was capacity to sacrifice for the common good.
COVID didn't test for capacity to sacrifice for the common good. Sacrifice is voluntary. It tested for capacity to submit to authoritarian control for the common good.
COVID didn't test for capacity to sacrifice for the common good. Sacrifice is voluntary. It tested for capacity to submit to authoritarian control for the common good.
Yeah. Entirely failed to lock up and isolate the vulnerable for their own good. Which really would have been the altruistic choice. If we are not even ready and capable to do the most obvious and reasonable. How can we expect anything better?
That's why the community has to survive 80 years in the Antarctica without any contact, and only the surving generation may start the travel then. 2400 people on the ship, plus 20% who will not make it. Or maybe 90%?
Sweden did not have a mask mandate and did very well.
Are you opining from the outside or did you live here during the pandemic?
If you entered a bus or any public space during that time, most people were wearing masks. And bus schedules were heavily adjusted to decrease density of people. Society did a lot to fight the virus, just not based on mandates but based on getting people to voluntarily do what was necessary because they in majority used common sense and an undertanding of what's the danger and what is needed. Similar to what an intergenerational space ship would need.
So, if your argument is "you can solve big problems without coersion" then I'm with you. You need a high trust society.
Though if your argument is "the mask stuff was just BS, just look at Sweden, they didn't use any and turned out well" then you just don't have a clue what you are talking about.
If you entered a bus or any public space during that time, most people were wearing masks. And bus schedules were heavily adjusted to decrease density of people. Society did a lot to fight the virus, just not based on mandates but based on getting people to voluntarily do what was necessary because they in majority used common sense and an undertanding of what's the danger and what is needed. Similar to what an intergenerational space ship would need.
So, if your argument is "you can solve big problems without coersion" then I'm with you. You need a high trust society.
Though if your argument is "the mask stuff was just BS, just look at Sweden, they didn't use any and turned out well" then you just don't have a clue what you are talking about.
And most people did use masks. We did not do as good as our neighbours though.
Here in Buenos Aires we had a complete lockdown for 6 months, I coud only go walking only up to 1/4 mile and only to buy food. For longer trips I needed a writen authorization.
Most people used mask, even in the street, nobody complained, but a few morons used it in the chin that is not very effective.
Anyway, we got more death per million than Sweden.
Most people used mask, even in the street, nobody complained, but a few morons used it in the chin that is not very effective.
Anyway, we got more death per million than Sweden.
[deleted]
> I am increasingly certain that culture is by far the biggest limiting factor
We're never leaving because "woke."
/s
We're never leaving because "woke."
/s
[deleted]
Relativity isn't the problem. The problem is that hitting a grain of sand at 0.1 c delivers the energy of several tonnes of TNT.
My guess is that we will colonize the asteroid belt (Palladium! So much palladium!) and send lots of interstellar probes long before we try to send humans outside the solar system. Right now we're like a village that lives by a river and has never reached the mouth talking about sailing across the ocean. There are a lot of intermediate stages.
My guess is that we will colonize the asteroid belt (Palladium! So much palladium!) and send lots of interstellar probes long before we try to send humans outside the solar system. Right now we're like a village that lives by a river and has never reached the mouth talking about sailing across the ocean. There are a lot of intermediate stages.
It's not only about palladium or any other kind of ore. It's that you can launch from there to Earth orbit and spare most of the costs of lifting mass from the surface of our planet. Then you build habitats and ships with that stuff because it's much cheaper. Too bad we don't have neither mining nor factories in space yet. Two not trivial technologies to develop.
The book Delta V [1] explores that scenario, with an asteroid on an orbit close to Earth to minimize the delta v to ship things back home.
[1] https://daniel-suarez.com/Delta-v_synopsis.html
The book Delta V [1] explores that scenario, with an asteroid on an orbit close to Earth to minimize the delta v to ship things back home.
[1] https://daniel-suarez.com/Delta-v_synopsis.html
> Right now we're like a village that lives by a river and has never reached the mouth talking about sailing across the ocean
And that’s an enormous understatement. Let’s say the villagers have travelled a meager 10 km of the river. Then, the ocean is, ballpark, at most 1,000 times as wide as the distance to the sea.
A thousand times the distance between earth and moon (the farthest humans have travelled) gets you, ballpark, to mars.
A lightyear is ~50,000 times the distance to mars or 50,000,000 times as far as humans have travelled. And yet, in interstellar travel, a lightyear gets you nowhere.
And that’s an enormous understatement. Let’s say the villagers have travelled a meager 10 km of the river. Then, the ocean is, ballpark, at most 1,000 times as wide as the distance to the sea.
A thousand times the distance between earth and moon (the farthest humans have travelled) gets you, ballpark, to mars.
A lightyear is ~50,000 times the distance to mars or 50,000,000 times as far as humans have travelled. And yet, in interstellar travel, a lightyear gets you nowhere.
Sure, but the speeds you can realistically reach on the surface of a planet for any lenght of time is also many orders of magnitude less than you can reach in space & you also don't really loose speed by friction. That at least partially compensates for the mindboggling distances in space.
We're one good new religion away from colonizing the solar system.
Cathedrals were built over 100s of years. Imaging just living in a massive one and your whole holy purpose is to survive and thrive and spread.
It's entirely reasonable we'd have the will to make it happen, and pretty reasonable we'd be able to build it with planet scale effort, but sadly quite difficult to imagine it surviving even dust impacts for 400 years.
Cathedrals were built over 100s of years. Imaging just living in a massive one and your whole holy purpose is to survive and thrive and spread.
It's entirely reasonable we'd have the will to make it happen, and pretty reasonable we'd be able to build it with planet scale effort, but sadly quite difficult to imagine it surviving even dust impacts for 400 years.
> quite difficult to imagine it surviving even dust impacts for 400 years
Whipple shields [1].
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whipple_shield
Whipple shields [1].
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whipple_shield
Whipple shields are consumed by impacts.
> Whipple shields are consumed by impacts
Everything is consumed on such a voyage. If we can send a generation ship at 0.01c, we can send replacement parts quicker and probes ahead to verify our estimates even faster.
Everything is consumed on such a voyage. If we can send a generation ship at 0.01c, we can send replacement parts quicker and probes ahead to verify our estimates even faster.
Are you just casually handwaving away sending a dockable resupply ship at 0.01c to somewhere in interstellar space, then doing some kind of rendesvous with it at 0.01c with a spaceship measured kilometers in length?
There's no free lunch. Every gram of mass that you want to get to interstellar space requires exactly as much fuel to get there as you'd have to add to the original spacecraft to just carry it.
(thought experiment - have them fly side by side, then connect them by string, then shorten the string until they touch, then weld them together - the fuel required doesn't change at any point).
And a shield + a resupply ship has a lot more grams than just adding the shield to the original thing.
There's no free lunch. Every gram of mass that you want to get to interstellar space requires exactly as much fuel to get there as you'd have to add to the original spacecraft to just carry it.
(thought experiment - have them fly side by side, then connect them by string, then shorten the string until they touch, then weld them together - the fuel required doesn't change at any point).
And a shield + a resupply ship has a lot more grams than just adding the shield to the original thing.
> up to 18km/s
Vs
> 0.1c
Off by quite a bit
Vs
> 0.1c
Off by quite a bit
Where are you getting either of these figures?
The up to 18km/s is from the linked shield.
Up to 0.1c is from the interstellar spaceship competition "cruise" speeds (also used 0.01c) as presented in their deck.
They're a few orders of magnitude difference.
Also, there's plenty of resources around on interstellar travel that shows interstellar dust/debris is going to be a huge problem.
For example Atomic Rockets, which has a bunch of good reference materials (albeit poorly organized), or the Astronomy Cafe
https://sten.astronomycafe.net/at-what-speed-does-the-inters...
Up to 0.1c is from the interstellar spaceship competition "cruise" speeds (also used 0.01c) as presented in their deck.
They're a few orders of magnitude difference.
Also, there's plenty of resources around on interstellar travel that shows interstellar dust/debris is going to be a huge problem.
For example Atomic Rockets, which has a bunch of good reference materials (albeit poorly organized), or the Astronomy Cafe
https://sten.astronomycafe.net/at-what-speed-does-the-inters...
> your whole holy purpose is to survive and thrive and spread.
Go forth, and multiply.
I've played that game: http://irontowerstudio.com/colony-ship-news
Imperium of Man?
> It's entirely reasonable we'd have the will to make it happen
"We" are not even able to sustainably inhabit our current planet. We have hundreds of millions starving every day, we have wars in many places, the threat of thermonuclear war looming as strong as ever, and are still using natural resources at an unsustainable rate even though we know that that's the case. Settling on other planets has all these problems plus the issue of getting there plus the issue that the environment you find there is more hostile than the most hostile desert areas here on earth.
We currently live on paradise planet and can't even make things work well around here. Hard to see how you could make things work on Mars where you can't just go outside pick a leaf to eat and get some water to drink. Or just, you know, breathe.
"We" are not even able to sustainably inhabit our current planet. We have hundreds of millions starving every day, we have wars in many places, the threat of thermonuclear war looming as strong as ever, and are still using natural resources at an unsustainable rate even though we know that that's the case. Settling on other planets has all these problems plus the issue of getting there plus the issue that the environment you find there is more hostile than the most hostile desert areas here on earth.
We currently live on paradise planet and can't even make things work well around here. Hard to see how you could make things work on Mars where you can't just go outside pick a leaf to eat and get some water to drink. Or just, you know, breathe.
We do not have hundreds of millions starving every day.
And if we did, we don't have a large portion of industrialized/militarized missions starving every day anway.
We'd send the best of the best, hand picked, with the best tech we can build.
It's fine if you believe we should not go (but I disagree), but the state of the world is not evidence of failure of the mission.
It's fine if you believe we should not go (but I disagree), but the state of the world is not evidence of failure of the mission.
> We do not have hundreds of millions starving every day.
Then maybe it's time you stop being ignorant. It's not even hard to google. Start with the WHO, over 700 million people faced hunger and malnutrition in 2023. [1] And I'm not particularly interested in how you will try to nitpick your way out of that. It's so easy in the west and in upper classes of the developing world to close your eyes to this.
[1] https://www.who.int/news/item/24-07-2024-hunger-numbers-stub...
> And if we did, we don't have a large portion of industrialized/militarized missions starving every day anway. We'd send the best of the best, hand picked, with the best tech we can build.
Initially, sure. But that's not what I was talking about. Eventually you want to build a civilization there, right? Eventually you have millions there. And it's hard to see how you will be able to organize a society in large scale in a way that does not have the problems humankind currently has if you can't even fix that here which compared to all other planets is a nature paradise. Even after a thermonuclear war, earth is easier to live on than any other planet in this solar system. Time to leave your scifi bubble if you believe otherwise.
> It's fine if you believe we should not go (but I disagree), but the state of the world is not evidence of failure of the mission.
The state of the world is evidence of failure of a mission that is much easier than building a civilization on another planet.
Then maybe it's time you stop being ignorant. It's not even hard to google. Start with the WHO, over 700 million people faced hunger and malnutrition in 2023. [1] And I'm not particularly interested in how you will try to nitpick your way out of that. It's so easy in the west and in upper classes of the developing world to close your eyes to this.
[1] https://www.who.int/news/item/24-07-2024-hunger-numbers-stub...
> And if we did, we don't have a large portion of industrialized/militarized missions starving every day anway. We'd send the best of the best, hand picked, with the best tech we can build.
Initially, sure. But that's not what I was talking about. Eventually you want to build a civilization there, right? Eventually you have millions there. And it's hard to see how you will be able to organize a society in large scale in a way that does not have the problems humankind currently has if you can't even fix that here which compared to all other planets is a nature paradise. Even after a thermonuclear war, earth is easier to live on than any other planet in this solar system. Time to leave your scifi bubble if you believe otherwise.
> It's fine if you believe we should not go (but I disagree), but the state of the world is not evidence of failure of the mission.
The state of the world is evidence of failure of a mission that is much easier than building a civilization on another planet.
We are a life form that triggered major environmental crisis and is trying to adapt to it at unprecedented speed that no other life form achieved in the past. Our base line for being able to make changes isn’t science fiction but couple billions of history of life on this planet. Our goals are ambitious but we are doing surprisingly well. Just not as we want it to happen.
I read their comment as saying that current physics doesn't allow the kind of propulsion systems we need, even with optimal engineering and well below the lightspeed limit.
> current physics doesn't allow the kind of propulsion systems we need
Which is wrong. Direct-drive fusion fits the bill. It’s also easier than terrestrial power-generating fusion since you don’t need to convert to electricity.
Which is wrong. Direct-drive fusion fits the bill. It’s also easier than terrestrial power-generating fusion since you don’t need to convert to electricity.
Energy is the limit. If used Wolfram Alpha right for reasonable comparison that is largest cruise ship with mass of 248663000 kg to speed up to 0.01c mentioned the kinetic energy would be 2.9 times the worlds fossil fuel reserves...
Then double that to slow down. And remember efficiency and that well you need to spend some to keep people alive...
Seems like energy in general is one of the true problems.
Then double that to slow down. And remember efficiency and that well you need to spend some to keep people alive...
Seems like energy in general is one of the true problems.
> If used Wolfram Alpha right for reasonable comparison that is largest cruise ship with mass of 248663000 kg to speed up to 0.01c mentioned the kinetic energy would be 2.9 times the worlds fossil fuel reserves
This math is wrong.
Back of the envelope: accelerating 250 x 10^6 kg to 1% of c over one year is about 310,000 TWh. That’s like half of current annual energy production.
Even at like 10g, which would accelerate that mass to 1% c in less than half a day, you’d only use like a tenth of our 10^22 joules of fossil fuel reserves.
> double that to slow down
Why the asymmetry? 1x to accelerate, 1x to decelerate. (Less if you can aerobrake and/or use gravity assists.)
Taking the 310k TWh from earlier and doubling it, and assuming 18 MeV for D-T direct-drive fusion, and you need 6,600 kg fuel for the journey. (Plus propellant.) 100x that to account for inefficiency and cooling and you have 660 metric tonnes of hydrogen. That, if kept in its bastard liquid form, takes up about 3 Olympic-size swimming pools in volume.
This math is wrong.
Back of the envelope: accelerating 250 x 10^6 kg to 1% of c over one year is about 310,000 TWh. That’s like half of current annual energy production.
Even at like 10g, which would accelerate that mass to 1% c in less than half a day, you’d only use like a tenth of our 10^22 joules of fossil fuel reserves.
> double that to slow down
Why the asymmetry? 1x to accelerate, 1x to decelerate. (Less if you can aerobrake and/or use gravity assists.)
Taking the 310k TWh from earlier and doubling it, and assuming 18 MeV for D-T direct-drive fusion, and you need 6,600 kg fuel for the journey. (Plus propellant.) 100x that to account for inefficiency and cooling and you have 660 metric tonnes of hydrogen. That, if kept in its bastard liquid form, takes up about 3 Olympic-size swimming pools in volume.
Yeah, stupid thing went with c^2... Not (0.01c) ^2... My bad from not reading the steps properly.
Still, even half of current annual production is quite a ask. For single ship, and I might venture to guess that 250e6 kg might be light for what is needed...
Still, even half of current annual production is quite a ask. For single ship, and I might venture to guess that 250e6 kg might be light for what is needed...
Your maths is correct.
Shame we don't have a way to efficiently convert fuel energy directly into a ship's kinetic energy, and have to go via conservation of momentum… though I suppose magnetic launch of interstellar vehicles would be a neat use for a Dyson shell or Niven ring?: https://www.wolframalpha.com/input?i=0.5+*+1+gee+*+%280.01c%...
Shame we don't have a way to efficiently convert fuel energy directly into a ship's kinetic energy, and have to go via conservation of momentum… though I suppose magnetic launch of interstellar vehicles would be a neat use for a Dyson shell or Niven ring?: https://www.wolframalpha.com/input?i=0.5+*+1+gee+*+%280.01c%...
Is this the right time to mention the Atomic Rockets website?
https://projectrho.com/public_html/rocket/
It's _full_ of good stuff.
https://projectrho.com/public_html/rocket/
It's _full_ of good stuff.
Project Rho is one of my references for the novel I'm trapped in an endless cycle of re-writing :)
You wouldn't be burning coal for propulsion, you would fuse atoms: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Orion_(nuclear_propuls...
Or even better - ride a continuous fission detonation powered by the worlds biggest super-soaker! :)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_salt-water_rocket
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_salt-water_rocket
I didn't coal would be used. Just that involved amount of energy would be truly massive. Even with fusion.
If you can build and maintain a system capable of sustaining the lives of 1,000 humans for 400 years, why do you care about interstellar travel anymore?
“The indefatigable spirit of exploration” isn’t the answer. People, as a mass, only explore to find new resources due to scarcity.
There are exceptions, but they tend to be thrill seekers or publicity hounds seeking to capitalize on a measure of fame upon their return and dying on a spacecraft 1/5th of the way through its journey isn’t thrilling and no ticker tape parades await your return.
If you can build a spacecraft capable of sustaining 1,000 human lives for multiple centuries, you’ve solved all local resource scarcity problems. You could just mine the solar system and build billions of habitats that lazily circle the sun.
Hell, you wouldn’t even care about habitable planets anymore and a likely endpoint for any interstellar efforts would likely be a long-lived star with large orbiting gas giants you could turn into solid materials in order to build trillions of habitats orbiting that star, not an insignificant earth-like boulder.
Imagine turning all of the methane in a gas giant into carbon strands, using its hydrogen to do it and building a near-infinite number of habitats, each perfectly suited to human existence.
An earth-like planet with its quakes and tsunamis and seasonal cycles would seem pathetic.
“The indefatigable spirit of exploration” isn’t the answer. People, as a mass, only explore to find new resources due to scarcity.
There are exceptions, but they tend to be thrill seekers or publicity hounds seeking to capitalize on a measure of fame upon their return and dying on a spacecraft 1/5th of the way through its journey isn’t thrilling and no ticker tape parades await your return.
If you can build a spacecraft capable of sustaining 1,000 human lives for multiple centuries, you’ve solved all local resource scarcity problems. You could just mine the solar system and build billions of habitats that lazily circle the sun.
Hell, you wouldn’t even care about habitable planets anymore and a likely endpoint for any interstellar efforts would likely be a long-lived star with large orbiting gas giants you could turn into solid materials in order to build trillions of habitats orbiting that star, not an insignificant earth-like boulder.
Imagine turning all of the methane in a gas giant into carbon strands, using its hydrogen to do it and building a near-infinite number of habitats, each perfectly suited to human existence.
An earth-like planet with its quakes and tsunamis and seasonal cycles would seem pathetic.
> People, as a mass, only explore to find new resources due to scarcity
Empirically totally untrue as to be trivially disproven by like half of wealthy social media.
> thrill seekers or publicity hounds seeking to capitalize on a measure of fame upon their return
Everyone on these ships would be a celebrity on Earth. (Ideally, if they so chose.)
Again, a simple reading of one-way trip settler-explorers across history similarly rejects this notion.
> If you can build a spacecraft capable of sustaining 1,000 human lives for multiple centuries, you’ve solved all local resource scarcity problems
The first several of these ships are likely to end in catastrophe. The first to succeed will be breaking down on arrival. If we learn to build luxurious space habitats it will be through these endeavours.
Empirically totally untrue as to be trivially disproven by like half of wealthy social media.
> thrill seekers or publicity hounds seeking to capitalize on a measure of fame upon their return
Everyone on these ships would be a celebrity on Earth. (Ideally, if they so chose.)
Again, a simple reading of one-way trip settler-explorers across history similarly rejects this notion.
> If you can build a spacecraft capable of sustaining 1,000 human lives for multiple centuries, you’ve solved all local resource scarcity problems
The first several of these ships are likely to end in catastrophe. The first to succeed will be breaking down on arrival. If we learn to build luxurious space habitats it will be through these endeavours.
> Empirically totally untrue as to be trivially disproven by like half of wealthy social media.
A week in Bali is not the same thing as interstellar travel…
A week in Bali is not the same thing as interstellar travel…
> A week in Bali
Are you genuinely unfamiliar with the folks who launch off on their own into the deep wilderness for years on end. Not only for vanity, but largely to do groundbreaking research?
Are you genuinely unfamiliar with the folks who launch off on their own into the deep wilderness for years on end. Not only for vanity, but largely to do groundbreaking research?
Sure, individual weirdos can do that for a few years. But you're talking about literally millennia of travel. Hundreds of generations of people living their entire life on the bus never getting to the destination before they die. Trapped out in the cold empty void of space with literally nothing around, for their entire lives, and the lives of their children, and their children's children, for longer than we have had the written word. Never even knowing if the destination is worth it.
In this exercise, it's 400 years. A long time, yes, but nowhere near what you're suggesting.
We don't have anywhere near the engine technology to make it anywhere worth going to in 400 years. That's orders of magnitude more difficult.
Anywhere that might sustain life is no closer than a couple thousand years away if we develop ultra-efficient almost magical engines that only bend the laws of physics instead of breaking them outright. Stuff like accelerating the propellent so hard that it picks up enormous amounts of relativistic mass, like every gram of propellant weighs effectively a ton because you've accelerated it so close to the speed of light, which requires some kind of ultra-dense power source that makes mere matter-antimatter annihilation look like burning a match.
Anywhere that might sustain life is no closer than a couple thousand years away if we develop ultra-efficient almost magical engines that only bend the laws of physics instead of breaking them outright. Stuff like accelerating the propellent so hard that it picks up enormous amounts of relativistic mass, like every gram of propellant weighs effectively a ton because you've accelerated it so close to the speed of light, which requires some kind of ultra-dense power source that makes mere matter-antimatter annihilation look like burning a match.
Yes.
Are you confusing "adventurer" and "explorer"? There are plenty of contemporary adventurers (motivated by ego, fame, personal achievement) but explorers? Not so much.
Are you confusing "adventurer" and "explorer"? There are plenty of contemporary adventurers (motivated by ego, fame, personal achievement) but explorers? Not so much.
In that timeframe it would by nature need to be capable of full self repair, with the shipped materials and energy, and with no wasted byproducts.
We'd have to completely re-think industrial processes. I'm in favor of realized nanotechnology and 3d printers at an atomic level. Evolution stumbled across carbon based lifeforms as it's answer on Earth.
We'd have to completely re-think industrial processes. I'm in favor of realized nanotechnology and 3d printers at an atomic level. Evolution stumbled across carbon based lifeforms as it's answer on Earth.
> it would by nature need to be capable of full self repair
Why? If we can accelerate a small city to 0.01g in a year, we can accelerate smaller packages to catch up with it once a year.
Why? If we can accelerate a small city to 0.01g in a year, we can accelerate smaller packages to catch up with it once a year.
How is that package going to navigate, and then match velocity to dock?
Should be doable with beamed propulsion. Basically give each package a lightsail & you can have it maneuver when illuminated by laser arrays either in the home system or on the interstellar craft itself.
The beauty of this setup is that if you are really good at keeping the schedule, this can be all pre-computed. With time slots being allocated beforehand when the laser arrays send beams in a given direction & the packages (or the craft itself) just making really sure they stay in the beam & properly oriented when it arrives at the planed place and time.
The beauty of this setup is that if you are really good at keeping the schedule, this can be all pre-computed. With time slots being allocated beforehand when the laser arrays send beams in a given direction & the packages (or the craft itself) just making really sure they stay in the beam & properly oriented when it arrives at the planed place and time.
Imagine the mythology that will develop on that general ship about the beamed packages.
> full self repair, with the shipped materials and energy, and with no wasted byproducts.
Isn’t this impossible? Doesn’t entropy preclude perfect ongoing repair?
Isn’t this impossible? Doesn’t entropy preclude perfect ongoing repair?
> Isn’t this impossible? Doesn’t entropy preclude perfect ongoing repair?
Yes, but we don't actually need "perfect". Also: you can counter a lot of entropy from the energy supply of those engines.
Counter-but: we aren't even close to good enough for what we do need.
Yes, but we don't actually need "perfect". Also: you can counter a lot of entropy from the energy supply of those engines.
Counter-but: we aren't even close to good enough for what we do need.
Because if you don’t, someone else will, and they won’t share your values, and now have access to orders of magnitude more resources than you. We’ve seen how that ends.
With exponential growth and the second law of thermodynamics, there’s no such thing as solving resource scarcity, only delaying it.
With exponential growth and the second law of thermodynamics, there’s no such thing as solving resource scarcity, only delaying it.
I didn't expect imagining deep space suburbs this morning.
Speed isn't the problem... time is. Long term travel in space will destroy the body. Even with artificial gravity, cancer is nearly inevitable. I am ignoring the mental and emotional issues.
Astronauts are extremely tough individuals.
Now, if we can figure out some form of suspended animation, that fixes many problems for long range travel.
I am much more convinced that our best way to leave our solar system will be without our physical bodies. Some form of synthetic or uploaded consciousness would be much easier to move around. After constructing a network, they could even be transmitted instead of shipped.
This is obviously in the range of science fiction but if we exist long enough, who knows.
The show, Pantheon, did a fairly decent fictional take on the idea.
Astronauts are extremely tough individuals.
Now, if we can figure out some form of suspended animation, that fixes many problems for long range travel.
I am much more convinced that our best way to leave our solar system will be without our physical bodies. Some form of synthetic or uploaded consciousness would be much easier to move around. After constructing a network, they could even be transmitted instead of shipped.
This is obviously in the range of science fiction but if we exist long enough, who knows.
The show, Pantheon, did a fairly decent fictional take on the idea.
> Now, if we can figure out some form of suspended animation
You'll still need someone awake to pilot the ship, otherwise you'll end up crash landed on a planet with Riddick running loose.
You'll still need someone awake to pilot the ship, otherwise you'll end up crash landed on a planet with Riddick running loose.
Yep, it is always a good idea to have a flight crew[0] when most of the passengers are in hibernation. It might take them some time but they will always sort thing out in the end! :)
[0] https://revelationspace.fandom.com/wiki/Galactic_North_(shor...
[0] https://revelationspace.fandom.com/wiki/Galactic_North_(shor...
Some sort of AI algorithm? Don't think anyone pilots the SpaceX Dragon.
Looks like it is x86 + Linux and C++: https://hackaday.com/2024/02/10/the-usage-of-embedded-linux-...
We had the technology to do it in 44 years 60 years ago:
An atomic (fission) Orion can achieve perhaps 9–11% of the speed of light. [...] At 0.1 c, Orion thermonuclear starships would require a flight time of at least 44 years to reach Alpha Centauri, not counting time needed to reach that speed (about 36 days at constant acceleration of 1 g or 9.8 m/s2).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Orion_(nuclear_propuls...
An atomic (fission) Orion can achieve perhaps 9–11% of the speed of light. [...] At 0.1 c, Orion thermonuclear starships would require a flight time of at least 44 years to reach Alpha Centauri, not counting time needed to reach that speed (about 36 days at constant acceleration of 1 g or 9.8 m/s2).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Orion_(nuclear_propuls...
Tbf we had nuclear [fission] pulsed propulsion technology in the 1960s in roughly the same way we had nuclear fusion in the 1960s: we had an understanding of some basic principles of physics and some calculations that looked broadly plausible
The problem with using thermonuclear explosions to produce that level of thrust are more "but can we actually do it safely" than "but can we do it in a way that generates more that it takes to produce", but that's a not inconsiderable problem even without all the international agreements about where we shouldn't be exploding nuclear bombs...
The problem with using thermonuclear explosions to produce that level of thrust are more "but can we actually do it safely" than "but can we do it in a way that generates more that it takes to produce", but that's a not inconsiderable problem even without all the international agreements about where we shouldn't be exploding nuclear bombs...
> We had the technology to do it in 44 years 60 years ago:
No, we had not. That was only theoretical work, no real technology, not even a prototype.
No, we had not. That was only theoretical work, no real technology, not even a prototype.
IIRC there were sub-scale test done with chemical explosives. Also Feynman said it should work. :)
Adding to the issue that it is relative pointless (IMO) to send meat popsicles all that way when a robot can make the journey about a million times easier and just send us some postcards.
I hate to be a Debbie Downer, but it's kinda boring out there. We'd certainly not want to make the trek until the robots had scoured the galaxy looking for a fun place to visit. And by that time we'll all be living in some post-Singularity holodeck and won't give a hoot about some empty rock 600 light years away.
Send the bots. I'll watch the highlight reel from my pod.
I hate to be a Debbie Downer, but it's kinda boring out there. We'd certainly not want to make the trek until the robots had scoured the galaxy looking for a fun place to visit. And by that time we'll all be living in some post-Singularity holodeck and won't give a hoot about some empty rock 600 light years away.
Send the bots. I'll watch the highlight reel from my pod.
My own view is that the most likely form of interstellar travel will be something like that used in Greg Egan's Diaspora - with upload communities sending themselves in relatively small ships and choosing whether to experience the journey or not.
I expect a kind of leapfrogging. Scout ahead, build a gate and/or infrastructure/terraforming, then a small fraction will decide it's worth migrating. Repeat.
Expansion will only go as quickly as travel time allows. Even the speed of light seems insufficient beyond a certain point. We will want to manipulate space.
Expansion will only go as quickly as travel time allows. Even the speed of light seems insufficient beyond a certain point. We will want to manipulate space.
Said like a true citizen of the Culture. And I mean that as a compliment!
c appears to be the speed limit of the propagation of information in the universe - never say never, but so far it appears quite unlikely any new physics will overturn this.
If we manage to get anywhere near 0.1c and slow biological ageing we can get nearly anywhere with the right engineering.
Speed is one thing. Surviving space is another.
Where is the propulsion system design?
Are all of these handwaving propulsion? They seem to all be habitat designs.
Ok I'll take my shot at propulsion:
Pulse nuclear BUT:
For acceleration, we have a launch gun that fires more fuel at the ship, and the ship catches the fuel, imparting momentum from the catch, and more fuel for acceleration.
For deceleration, we have pellets that it catches up to and uses the catching to slow down with, AND gains fuel to decelerate.
If the catch can be done like an ion drive in efficiency, then you get ion drive efficiencies while gaining fuel for the pulse nuclear accelerations/decelerations.
The real problem would be timing the deceleration "catches", and a HELL of a railgun.
We aren't really doing this in current physics without a massive and functional orbital/planetary economy that gives cheap nuclear fuel and materials. We'll probably need solar wind antimatter harvesters as well, if those are actually a thing.
Are all of these handwaving propulsion? They seem to all be habitat designs.
Ok I'll take my shot at propulsion:
Pulse nuclear BUT:
For acceleration, we have a launch gun that fires more fuel at the ship, and the ship catches the fuel, imparting momentum from the catch, and more fuel for acceleration.
For deceleration, we have pellets that it catches up to and uses the catching to slow down with, AND gains fuel to decelerate.
If the catch can be done like an ion drive in efficiency, then you get ion drive efficiencies while gaining fuel for the pulse nuclear accelerations/decelerations.
The real problem would be timing the deceleration "catches", and a HELL of a railgun.
We aren't really doing this in current physics without a massive and functional orbital/planetary economy that gives cheap nuclear fuel and materials. We'll probably need solar wind antimatter harvesters as well, if those are actually a thing.
The drive in this design is not yet invented Helium 3 - Deuterium Direct Fusion Drive.
In your design how is it going to catch up to pellets if it's decelerating? I.e. pellets need to be pre-decelerated for this. Which raises the question, would it be cheaper just to bring all deceleration fuel onboard.
In your design how is it going to catch up to pellets if it's decelerating? I.e. pellets need to be pre-decelerated for this. Which raises the question, would it be cheaper just to bring all deceleration fuel onboard.
You'd spend years firing pellets in advance of the voyage, on the same trajectory but moving a little slower than the ship you plan to launch. Time it all so you catch up with the first of them just as you want to start decelerating.
But then the whole project takes thousands instead of hundreds of years
And also it requires extraordinary navigation precision. These launches are going to be spread in time, which means that they don't happen from the same place (all celestial bodies move relative to each other). Which in turn means that when you approach the pellet there is going to be perpendicular velocity component.
Even without taking this into account all systems are going to need active guidance - there is no way you do single burn and end up in the same place in the same time few light years away.
The best schema is probably launching all fuels containers that should be picked up for retro burn at the same time with much higher acceleration (orbital rail gun and then a burner), and with very slightly smaller final speed.
Then on the main craft you do short retro burn to match speed to fuels containers, attach them and do full retro burn for orbital insertion.
Benefit of this schema is that you don't need to accelerate everything slowly using main engine, so your original booster can be way smaller. (Energy-wise it only works if you have stationary means to accelerate high-g-capable payloads, i.e. orbital railgun, in this case you don't have to accelerate extra fuel required for initial burn)
Even without taking this into account all systems are going to need active guidance - there is no way you do single burn and end up in the same place in the same time few light years away.
The best schema is probably launching all fuels containers that should be picked up for retro burn at the same time with much higher acceleration (orbital rail gun and then a burner), and with very slightly smaller final speed.
Then on the main craft you do short retro burn to match speed to fuels containers, attach them and do full retro burn for orbital insertion.
Benefit of this schema is that you don't need to accelerate everything slowly using main engine, so your original booster can be way smaller. (Energy-wise it only works if you have stationary means to accelerate high-g-capable payloads, i.e. orbital railgun, in this case you don't have to accelerate extra fuel required for initial burn)
I didn't say it would be easy :-)
But orion pulse nuclear propulsion is pretty powerful stuff, especially if you can antimatter-catalyze it.
But orion pulse nuclear propulsion is pretty powerful stuff, especially if you can antimatter-catalyze it.
So basically a beam rider, right ?
https://www.orionsarm.com/eg-article/460c3685cd4c4
https://www.orionsarm.com/eg-article/460c3685cd4c4
Thanks for sharing the presentation. I wish I could download it to look at it in a few years from now.
I hope durable file formats regain popularity before humanity starts embarking on interstellar voyages :)
I hope durable file formats regain popularity before humanity starts embarking on interstellar voyages :)
Perhaps I'm being mean (haven't read the full presentation) - but the winning team is made up of 2 actresses/artists, 1 social innovator, 1 designer, and 1 astrophysicist?
One of the artist is also an environmental engineer, the other is also a psychologist, the designer is an architect.
But yes, it's a work of design more than a blueprint.
But yes, it's a work of design more than a blueprint.
[deleted]
Pretty awesome. I feel like Paul Chadeisson should do a reward render of the assembly/flight. Nobody does space "big stuff" like he does.
Reminds me of the probe from Star Trek IV
I doubt the human psyche is capable of such a voyage while being awake the whole time. Even with all the toys and biomes, life will get boring and pointless fast, producing unfulfilled needs, disorder, conflict and revolt. People can't be ants in a colony working for such a narrowly defined goal through a lifetime, especially not multi-generationally. Our existence is based on constant questioning and revolutions. A 400 year travel to an unknown, possibly empty, lifeless target, however historic, is not something that can keep a society running long term.
> doubt the human psyche is capable of such a voyage while being awake the whole time
The human population fell to fewer than 10,000--possibly under one hundred--in the last Ice Age [1][-1]. There were almost certainly bands of fewer than 1,000 individuals who had to migrate for generations.
> life will get boring and pointless fast
Maybe on v1000. The first tens could expect a constant war footing against entropy and the unknown.
[1] https://www.npr.org/sections/krulwich/2012/10/22/163397584/h...
[-1] Possible counterfactual: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44818098
The human population fell to fewer than 10,000--possibly under one hundred--in the last Ice Age [1][-1]. There were almost certainly bands of fewer than 1,000 individuals who had to migrate for generations.
> life will get boring and pointless fast
Maybe on v1000. The first tens could expect a constant war footing against entropy and the unknown.
[1] https://www.npr.org/sections/krulwich/2012/10/22/163397584/h...
[-1] Possible counterfactual: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44818098
The people who had to migrate had a front row seat (and supporting role) to the greatest show in the known universe: life on earth.
Nature produces a truly unlimited amount of novelty, especially if you’re moving through it.
Nature produces a truly unlimited amount of novelty, especially if you’re moving through it.
> Nature produces a truly unlimited amount of novelty, especially if you’re moving through it.
I'm sure it was a lot of fun, in the Dwarf Fortress sense.
I'm sure it was a lot of fun, in the Dwarf Fortress sense.
FUN!
To be clear, the reference is !!FUN!!
The double exclamations signal that an object is on fire in DF.
The double exclamations signal that an object is on fire in DF.
They also had plenty of room to roam if they didn't like half the other people in their small corner of the universe...
Polynesians took enormous risks to populate the pacific.
Medieval builders built Catherdrals that they knew wouldn't be finished in their lifetime.
Heading off on a multi-generation mission with no guarantee of success is not for most people. But there are billions of us. I'm sure they would easily find enough people to crew a mission.
Medieval builders built Catherdrals that they knew wouldn't be finished in their lifetime.
Heading off on a multi-generation mission with no guarantee of success is not for most people. But there are billions of us. I'm sure they would easily find enough people to crew a mission.
I have a feeling that life on a spaceship like this would be an improvement for a non-trivial amount of those billions.
It would be cruel to their children.
Would it be any more cruel than having children as a serf on a farm, where your family has worked for countless generations, knowing that they're likely to have the same fate?
No, cause you need hands to work the land. And you end up having a dozen cause a few won't make it. /s
The whole "cruel to children" aspect is flawed. It only self-identifies individuals with a world view that is very earth-centric. We need a societal system where such a position is seen as an honorable one. That's why I liked the Antarctica bit of the submission. We ALL need to learn and change.
The whole "cruel to children" aspect is flawed. It only self-identifies individuals with a world view that is very earth-centric. We need a societal system where such a position is seen as an honorable one. That's why I liked the Antarctica bit of the submission. We ALL need to learn and change.
As adults we make our decisions as best we can. We can’t not make decisions, and the ones we do affect future generations whether they like it or not. That’s just life.
Having said that I worry about the sustainability of these projects. If these are not indefinitely sustainable on arrival, then future generations are doomed to die out with no hope of survival. I’ve no problem with a carefully judged risk, there are no guarantees in life, but there has to at least be a reasonable chance.
Having said that I worry about the sustainability of these projects. If these are not indefinitely sustainable on arrival, then future generations are doomed to die out with no hope of survival. I’ve no problem with a carefully judged risk, there are no guarantees in life, but there has to at least be a reasonable chance.
There's no need to worry about something that will never actually happen.
You're on a voyage through space in a big spaceship right now!
Right! And it's got crops, jobs, and a very small social circle and living quarter allocated for you. And you dream of more but are secretly happy with less.
People are not the monolithic group you seem to think them to be and in my experience most people adapt fairly quickly to their situation once they realize there is nothing they can do to change it.
I suspect it’ll be easier to adapt the human species to be compatible with long-duration travel than to design spaceships to accommodate humans as-is.
Reminds me of this: https://www.badspacecomics.com/post/rivers-end
The whole equation changes pretty drastically if we had a practical hibernation or biological stasis technology (I hate saying cryosleep, though in practice we know freezing things pauses them - see the 31 year old embryo baby recently).
Like do you really care how long it takes to get somewhere if it subjectively happens in the blink of an eye? Would you even necessarily be likely to lose your own peer group if you all spent significant time in hibernation travel between meetings?
Like do you really care how long it takes to get somewhere if it subjectively happens in the blink of an eye? Would you even necessarily be likely to lose your own peer group if you all spent significant time in hibernation travel between meetings?
This is how it works in the universe in the novel "Right of Return" by Janusz Zajdel - humanity has developed both safe hibernation as well as practical sub-light travel.
Many colonies, research stations and logistic hubs have been established with fast and dependable sub-light ships traversing between them.
On such a ship most of the crew is in hibernation at any one time, with just a couple people taking shifts from the hibernation to stand a watch during the flight.
Even with the ships reaching high sub-light speeds, the voyages take decades from outside perspective. But that might not be a problem! If you are one of the crew it might seem like a couple weeks as that's how long you flight crew shift took. If you are a passenger - it takes not time at all, you just go to hibernation & wake up at you destination!
So as long as you are a spacer or part of the wider community (e.q. space scientists who either study a wonder of space or are in transit to another one) this is fine - you will meet you friends again in a couple flight, in days or weeks of subjective time.
But if you befriends someone outside of the community or decide it was enough and settle down, you might never see them again.
Can really recommend the novel - has much more than this topic & quite a few other surprises. :)
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Janusz_Zajdel
Many colonies, research stations and logistic hubs have been established with fast and dependable sub-light ships traversing between them.
On such a ship most of the crew is in hibernation at any one time, with just a couple people taking shifts from the hibernation to stand a watch during the flight.
Even with the ships reaching high sub-light speeds, the voyages take decades from outside perspective. But that might not be a problem! If you are one of the crew it might seem like a couple weeks as that's how long you flight crew shift took. If you are a passenger - it takes not time at all, you just go to hibernation & wake up at you destination!
So as long as you are a spacer or part of the wider community (e.q. space scientists who either study a wonder of space or are in transit to another one) this is fine - you will meet you friends again in a couple flight, in days or weeks of subjective time.
But if you befriends someone outside of the community or decide it was enough and settle down, you might never see them again.
Can really recommend the novel - has much more than this topic & quite a few other surprises. :)
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Janusz_Zajdel
Particles are indistinguishable, this means that the specific particles that make up a physical object (like a human) are not important, you could replace all of them with different particles, ship of Theseus style, and it would be the same object.
What makes an object unique then is the specific configuration of the particles that make up that object. This configuration is a form of information.
Fortunately, we already know how to transmit information at the speed of light; no new physics required. This then reduces the problem to transporting the ‘printer’. No generation ship required. You need something that harvests particles locally and can receive a stream of data with what to print. You can bootstrap this, send a tiny particle harvester/printer that can print a slightly larger printer, etc.
What makes an object unique then is the specific configuration of the particles that make up that object. This configuration is a form of information.
Fortunately, we already know how to transmit information at the speed of light; no new physics required. This then reduces the problem to transporting the ‘printer’. No generation ship required. You need something that harvests particles locally and can receive a stream of data with what to print. You can bootstrap this, send a tiny particle harvester/printer that can print a slightly larger printer, etc.
There's a reason Star Trek teleporters have a "Heisenberg compensator", we cannot record both the position and momentum of a particle precisely. Scanning the "configuration of particles" to transmit to this theoretical printer is the first impossible roadblock. The human you scan can never be the same exact person printed.
The reason Trek has it is likely a common misunderstanding of QM: it's not only that we cannot record both position and momentum, the information does not exist in the first place.
It's easier to see why if you think about Fourier transforms: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MBnnXbOM5S4&themeRefresh=1
TLDW: an infinitely long wave does not (cannot) have any definite location, but it does have a definite periodic wavelength; conversely, a single impulse noise (a shockwave from e.g. a bullet or an explosion) has a definite location (in the direction of motion and at any given point in time) but no meaningful wavelength.
The more you constrain the possibility space of one, the looser the other becomes in a physical sense, not just the information you have about it.
It's easier to see why if you think about Fourier transforms: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MBnnXbOM5S4&themeRefresh=1
TLDW: an infinitely long wave does not (cannot) have any definite location, but it does have a definite periodic wavelength; conversely, a single impulse noise (a shockwave from e.g. a bullet or an explosion) has a definite location (in the direction of motion and at any given point in time) but no meaningful wavelength.
The more you constrain the possibility space of one, the looser the other becomes in a physical sense, not just the information you have about it.
If you can scan, why transmit at all? Just put the scan in simulation.
Right now, it's easier to scan than to simulate.
That said, we definitely don't have the means to 3D print even relatively simple tissues, last I checked we are still limited to structures thin enough to be kept alive by oxygen diffusion.
One of my open questions on this topic is: given we can cryopreserve small tissue without the freezing-damage problem, why can't we do a repeated process of:
1. cell culture tissue sheets that are ~1mm (or whatever) thick
2. cryopreserve each sheet
3. then assemble those sheets, still frozen
4. then thaw out as per normal procedure for cryopreserved organs
Caveat: I have minimal knowledge of biology, this may be a stupid idea for a whole bunch of reasons I don't even know the names of.
That said, we definitely don't have the means to 3D print even relatively simple tissues, last I checked we are still limited to structures thin enough to be kept alive by oxygen diffusion.
One of my open questions on this topic is: given we can cryopreserve small tissue without the freezing-damage problem, why can't we do a repeated process of:
1. cell culture tissue sheets that are ~1mm (or whatever) thick
2. cryopreserve each sheet
3. then assemble those sheets, still frozen
4. then thaw out as per normal procedure for cryopreserved organs
Caveat: I have minimal knowledge of biology, this may be a stupid idea for a whole bunch of reasons I don't even know the names of.
Simulations still need to run on something & need energy to power them. The better, more stable, higher fidelity simulation you want, the more mass & energy it will need. And that needs to come from somewhere - a thing many infomorphs tend to conveniently forget far too often.
To the extent what they’re suggesting isn’t bunk, it’s in being able to transmit genetic information and then print it to a womb. Then have a generation of psychopaths raised by a robot.
As with many topics, the Orions Arm Universe project has you covered - the Engenerator[0]!
Originally developed in-universe when a bunch of immortal cyborgs got bored on a colonization ship & decided to instruct a precursor probe to print a machine that prints a machine that will print their bodies on site. :)
The engenerator technology is completely safe[1] and can't be misused in any way.
[0] https://www.orionsarm.com/eg-article/486fee4017475
[1] https://www.orionsarm.com/eg-article/461009349a06e
Originally developed in-universe when a bunch of immortal cyborgs got bored on a colonization ship & decided to instruct a precursor probe to print a machine that prints a machine that will print their bodies on site. :)
The engenerator technology is completely safe[1] and can't be misused in any way.
[0] https://www.orionsarm.com/eg-article/486fee4017475
[1] https://www.orionsarm.com/eg-article/461009349a06e
This is the most likely way we'd do it, provided we get over our cultural/political/religious limitations, which might pose a real obstacle.
The most likely way to move in the Universe is through something along the lines of von Neumann probes, which can be small machines sent at relativistic speeds across the whole galaxy, setting up these "spawn" points. Even at 10% speed of light it would take 1 million years to get such probes in strategic points to cover most of our galaxy.
The most likely way to move in the Universe is through something along the lines of von Neumann probes, which can be small machines sent at relativistic speeds across the whole galaxy, setting up these "spawn" points. Even at 10% speed of light it would take 1 million years to get such probes in strategic points to cover most of our galaxy.
What "current and neat future technologies" do you suggest using for this approach?
https://blog.google/technology/research/google-ai-research-n...
Look into Assembly Theory as well: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assembly_theory They already developed some kind of chemical printer for simple molecules.
Look into Assembly Theory as well: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assembly_theory They already developed some kind of chemical printer for simple molecules.
it is not clear to me that getting an autonomous 'printer' to function from 4 years away is any easier than creating an interstellar colony ship.
It also remains to be seen if you can 'print' a complex biological object, like a human.
It also remains to be seen if you can 'print' a complex biological object, like a human.
You are being printed, every day, cell by cell.
But the process have been bootstrapped billions of years ago. They would have to print a feconded egg cell and make it grow. I think that the best we can do now is to freeze that cell and ship it to the next star. Then build the womb, which we can't do yet. And a zillion of other problems to solve.
No, they'd have to print the whole human that's encoded as data. Provided the process is fast enough, and the tech is available, it should be way faster than growing a full human from cells.
There's also no point in talking what can be done today, since such a project would take quite a while, both to assemble and get anywhere close to destination. Just because we cannot do it today doesn't mean it shouldn't be considered as a possible approach since we might get there in 30-50 years, which is nothing for the scales of time we're talking about.
Cryo tech is quite primitive, you are fighting to maintain a structure instead of saving its data and rebuilding it later when tech allows. Imagine 3D printing a benchy and freezing it so it stays "fresh" for 50 years (for some potential use at that time), instead of saving the benchy stl file and printing it in 50 years.
Plans for potential human expansion into our galaxy must include potential tech developments, can't block it to the tech that is available today. The way things are going there's no reason to discard full scan and reassemble of a full human being, in some future. Let alone moving consciousness on other type of more resilient hardware.
There's also no point in talking what can be done today, since such a project would take quite a while, both to assemble and get anywhere close to destination. Just because we cannot do it today doesn't mean it shouldn't be considered as a possible approach since we might get there in 30-50 years, which is nothing for the scales of time we're talking about.
Cryo tech is quite primitive, you are fighting to maintain a structure instead of saving its data and rebuilding it later when tech allows. Imagine 3D printing a benchy and freezing it so it stays "fresh" for 50 years (for some potential use at that time), instead of saving the benchy stl file and printing it in 50 years.
Plans for potential human expansion into our galaxy must include potential tech developments, can't block it to the tech that is available today. The way things are going there's no reason to discard full scan and reassemble of a full human being, in some future. Let alone moving consciousness on other type of more resilient hardware.
One distant day they’ll wonder who began them. Do you sign the work?
> Particles are indistinguishable
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spin_(physics)
A particle spins on any number of axes
> You need something that harvests particles locally and can receive a stream of data with what to print
You cannot obtain that data because this spin is impossible to measure)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spin_(physics)
A particle spins on any number of axes
> You need something that harvests particles locally and can receive a stream of data with what to print
You cannot obtain that data because this spin is impossible to measure)
Spin can be measured but what's the use for that? You can scan a chair and use the data to reassemble. If you get the wrong spins on particles do you not get the same chair? You're looking for a function which arises at higher level.
Measuring spin is impossible without changing the particle.
You assume a human is the same as a chair? seems like a stretch
You assume a human is the same as a chair? seems like a stretch
I don't understand, what is the purpose of measuring electron spin for your various atoms? Electrons are in a probability cloud, you need to scan/replicate the atomic structure, not measure the electron spin of your atoms. Doesn't really make sense for me, do you have something particular in mind or?
> Doesn't really make sense for me, do you have something particular in mind or?
Do you? I already said what I have in mind. particles are not indistinguishable and "scanning" objects without destroying them not possible in this reality
Do you? I already said what I have in mind. particles are not indistinguishable and "scanning" objects without destroying them not possible in this reality
Most people don't leave a pretty small radius around work/home for most their life. All you need is a religion/lifestyle built around it and the people factor is pretty easy.
I mean think about what we do all day. We stay in our little rooms, pushing some tasks we're told to do, and cherish our friends, spouses, and kids, and then we die without seeing 99.9999% of the spaceship we're already riding (Earth).
I mean think about what we do all day. We stay in our little rooms, pushing some tasks we're told to do, and cherish our friends, spouses, and kids, and then we die without seeing 99.9999% of the spaceship we're already riding (Earth).
Give the people some Minecraft on steroids and they wouldn't notice how half-century flew by.
Or those people of the past who would for generations not leave their village/county doing the same thing generation after generation.
Or those people of the past who would for generations not leave their village/county doing the same thing generation after generation.
I think the problems would come in the 2nd generation, who didn't choose to go on the mission.
Heidegger would say that all humans are thrown into existence and into circumstances that they did not choose. In some sense, we are currently on a large spaceship, and I assume some mission chosen for us by our predecessors.
I think we even today have enough propaganda and religion experience to make sure that the next generations would be happy to see themselves as the chosen ones, etc.
(small case in point - back in USSR we were happy that we were born in that wonderful country USSR and not in those decadent dangerous inhumane capitalist societies of the West where people were forced to struggle everyday to avoid becoming one of those numerous hungry homeless filling to the brim the dirty decaying cities of the West which they were showing us on the Soviet TV while we were supposedly on a mission to build better/higher/ideal society consisting of a new better entity "Soviet man" - "The Soviet man was to be selfless, learned, healthy, muscular, and enthusiastic in spreading the communist Revolution." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Soviet_man - note how the first 4 qualities work for interstellar, and they are pretty common among various other ideologies and religions, and the specific target for the 5th - for the enthusiasm - is just adjusted according the specific ideology or religion, and "spreading human civilization" wouldn't be even half-bad like some others out there)
(small case in point - back in USSR we were happy that we were born in that wonderful country USSR and not in those decadent dangerous inhumane capitalist societies of the West where people were forced to struggle everyday to avoid becoming one of those numerous hungry homeless filling to the brim the dirty decaying cities of the West which they were showing us on the Soviet TV while we were supposedly on a mission to build better/higher/ideal society consisting of a new better entity "Soviet man" - "The Soviet man was to be selfless, learned, healthy, muscular, and enthusiastic in spreading the communist Revolution." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Soviet_man - note how the first 4 qualities work for interstellar, and they are pretty common among various other ideologies and religions, and the specific target for the 5th - for the enthusiasm - is just adjusted according the specific ideology or religion, and "spreading human civilization" wouldn't be even half-bad like some others out there)
Um, did anyone actually believe that in practice ? Of course, if you asked them, they would say so, to 105 socialistic percent, comrade!
Bur personal and in private, it was very different.
Bur personal and in private, it was very different.
Of course the religious fervor of the first post-Revolution years wasn't there say in 197x, yet so many people in Russia have during the last 30+ years been wanting back to USSR. The propaganda shapes your brain, especially if they hit you while you're young.
>But personal and in private, it was very different.
Deep down unfortunately the ex-Soviet people, me included, are damaged goods :)
>But personal and in private, it was very different.
Deep down unfortunately the ex-Soviet people, me included, are damaged goods :)
So you just make it so they don't notice they are on an interstellar mission - sorry, to board the train to the capital you still need to fill in form XB1, but the officer who can fill it is on vacation (in the capital and the trains totally go somewhere!) - please come next cycle.
Basically an unhollo combination of Kafka and Truman show, keeping the community stable until arrival. :)
Basically an unhollo combination of Kafka and Truman show, keeping the community stable until arrival. :)
Provided the first generation volunteered, I expect the second generation would still be indoctrinate enough to the idea and mission to be fine, but the third generation would definitely be stirring some shit up.
Not really. That would just be the way life is to those people. Showing them videos of how people lived on a planet would be like asking them to imagine how a caveman lived.
If they did rebel it would probably be more along the lines of reaching the target inhabitable planet and refusing to leave the ship. Just grab enough material to set a new course for the next one and keep going.
The next set of rebels would be the ones who actually fulfilled the mission.
If they did rebel it would probably be more along the lines of reaching the target inhabitable planet and refusing to leave the ship. Just grab enough material to set a new course for the next one and keep going.
The next set of rebels would be the ones who actually fulfilled the mission.
Living on a ball of rock with no climate controll ? Are you insane ? Do what you want, I'll go back to building that new custom Stanford Torus we just got started last cycle. And don't call for help when it inevitably starts raining!
Yup.
All it takes is one short-sighted group to break something important to protest real (or perceived) injustice.
It already happens in the real world all the time.
All it takes is one short-sighted group to break something important to protest real (or perceived) injustice.
It already happens in the real world all the time.
Menonites in space. Autistic astronauts only.
In the Expanse they used Mormons, at least until the discovery of how to traverse the Ring Gate
Related to long-distance space travel: closed ecosystems. There’s been a couple cool experiments.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biosphere_2
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biosphere_2
Why does it say the Chrysalis spends 400 years in inertial age at 0.01c if it accelerates for 1 year at 0.1g? That should bring it to actually ~0.1c and the whole trip would take less than 15 years.
Wow, great find. It's funny that for such massive presentation with so many calculations there is such a simple error. Maybe they wanted to accelerate at 0.01g?
Doesn't it need to slow down
Yes, and that should also take 1 year.
If its loosing mass for propulsion, it might need to slow down a lighter ship, taking less time ?
Remember, a lighter ship can start slowing down later so it will arrive to its destination faster. This might be important if you are traveling with a flotilla of ships & decide for a little race at the end. Also helps if you have some heavy hibernation pods on board[0].
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chasm_City
Remember, a lighter ship can start slowing down later so it will arrive to its destination faster. This might be important if you are traveling with a flotilla of ships & decide for a little race at the end. Also helps if you have some heavy hibernation pods on board[0].
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chasm_City
I love that most of those designs give bigger houses to people in a spaceship than modern houses in the UK on planet earth.
Love the designs, doubt democracy would get them through more than 250 days, let alone 250 years.
Love the designs, doubt democracy would get them through more than 250 days, let alone 250 years.
> love that most of those designs give bigger houses to people in a spaceship than modern houses in the UK on planet earth
Would such a project be particularly volume constrained?
> doubt democracy would get them through more than 250 days, let alone 250 years
I don't. You'd be selecting for extraordinary individuals and educating them. These sorts of societies propagated for hundreds or even thousands of years in antiquity just fine.
The colonists be in a life-or-death system in a community small enough that everyone knows of everyone else personally. To the extent humans are almost uniquely exceptional at one thing as a hominid, it's exploration and colonization--I woudn't be surprised if this group winds up more functional due to scratching an underlying human need to explore and push boundaries.
Would such a project be particularly volume constrained?
> doubt democracy would get them through more than 250 days, let alone 250 years
I don't. You'd be selecting for extraordinary individuals and educating them. These sorts of societies propagated for hundreds or even thousands of years in antiquity just fine.
The colonists be in a life-or-death system in a community small enough that everyone knows of everyone else personally. To the extent humans are almost uniquely exceptional at one thing as a hominid, it's exploration and colonization--I woudn't be surprised if this group winds up more functional due to scratching an underlying human need to explore and push boundaries.
>Would such a project be particularly volume constrained?
It would be mass constrained because of the sheer cost of getting it all into orbit, even with advanced tech such as space elevator. And more volumne = more mass.
There is a saying in aerospace design along the lines of 'weight breeds weight'. Heavier components necessitate stronger, and therefore heavier, supporting structures.
It would be mass constrained because of the sheer cost of getting it all into orbit, even with advanced tech such as space elevator. And more volumne = more mass.
There is a saying in aerospace design along the lines of 'weight breeds weight'. Heavier components necessitate stronger, and therefore heavier, supporting structures.
Are you telling me a country is more constrained by space than a spaceship?
As for democracy "These sorts of societies propagated for hundreds or even thousands of years in antiquity just fine" - I don't know of any that practised the consensus driven democracy that almost all these proposals use. Ant if you're reaching into antiquity then not even normal democracies. Unless you're talking about a Athens with their slaves and adult male citizen population having a vote. In which case sure, I can get behind that but that's not what those spaceship designs propose. They all assume all decisions will be unanimous and no one will ever break the law.
In actual fact history proves the opposite and all exploration and conquest is driven by strict hierarchical organisations and the idea that you can fly a spaceship across light years without a captain who can condemn people to death is laughable.
As for democracy "These sorts of societies propagated for hundreds or even thousands of years in antiquity just fine" - I don't know of any that practised the consensus driven democracy that almost all these proposals use. Ant if you're reaching into antiquity then not even normal democracies. Unless you're talking about a Athens with their slaves and adult male citizen population having a vote. In which case sure, I can get behind that but that's not what those spaceship designs propose. They all assume all decisions will be unanimous and no one will ever break the law.
In actual fact history proves the opposite and all exploration and conquest is driven by strict hierarchical organisations and the idea that you can fly a spaceship across light years without a captain who can condemn people to death is laughable.
> a country is more constrained by space than a spaceship?
At the point that we're building 60 km spaceships, yes, I think that's a possibility.
> you're reaching into antiquity then not even normal democracies
The further back we go the more consensus-driven small societies get. I'm also reaching back due to familiarity. There are plenty of small island communities that did fine for generations on their own.
> They all assume all decisions will be unanimous and no one will ever break the law
Sorry, I missed this in the winning design. Where does it say that?
> all exploration and conquest is driven by strict hierarchical organisations
If you need to bring an army, yes. I don't think we know how hierarchical Polynesian settlers were.
At the point that we're building 60 km spaceships, yes, I think that's a possibility.
> you're reaching into antiquity then not even normal democracies
The further back we go the more consensus-driven small societies get. I'm also reaching back due to familiarity. There are plenty of small island communities that did fine for generations on their own.
> They all assume all decisions will be unanimous and no one will ever break the law
Sorry, I missed this in the winning design. Where does it say that?
> all exploration and conquest is driven by strict hierarchical organisations
If you need to bring an army, yes. I don't think we know how hierarchical Polynesian settlers were.
> Sorry, I missed this in the winning design. Where does it say that?
I didn't notice any prisons included in the design, so that assumption seems fair.
I didn't notice any prisons included in the design, so that assumption seems fair.
> didn't notice any prisons included in the design, so that assumption seems fair
Does it?
You don’t need dedicated prison space as you won’t have a permanent prison population. (Depending on labour requirements and resource availability this may not be a choice.) Nothing about not having a prison implies no hierarchy. And you don’t need prisons to “condemn people to death.”
Does it?
You don’t need dedicated prison space as you won’t have a permanent prison population. (Depending on labour requirements and resource availability this may not be a choice.) Nothing about not having a prison implies no hierarchy. And you don’t need prisons to “condemn people to death.”
I guess Vatican could be ?
Hypothetically, if you designed something that resembled the UK and tried to have humans live in it, that would not be ethical.
Yankee go away
The biggest "TBD" I've ever seen (in the slide deck for the winning entry):
"(TBD ethics of voluntary euthanasia)"
"(TBD ethics of voluntary euthanasia)"
For as many times as they mention it, it would seem that it is not really TBD.
An interstellar ship is indistinguishable from a generational colony ship because there's no way to realistically travel between stars in timelines that don't span generations unless we extend human lifetimes to centuries or longer. That's possible but doesn't change the trael times. It just means you live to the destination rather than your descedants do.
And let's aside the serious ethical issue of you choosing to board such a ship vs the offspring you have who definitely did not consent, some of whom may not even make it to the destination.
So a generational colony ship looks a lot like an O'Neil Cylinder [1]. It can spin to create 1g gravity and support enough people to make it to the destination.
The issue is energy. An orbital can support itself with solar power when around a star and doesn't need a form of propulsion. An interstellar ship will need an alternative energy source and also have a propulsion system that can sufficiently accelerate and decelerate. The energy budget for the propulsion is so large that the life support energy budget is a rounding error.
The only realistic policy I see is solar sails. This avoids the reaction mass issue. You need to decelerate at the other end. Part of that you get from drag in the interstellar medium. You either carry reaction mass for the rest or you go ahead and use automated systems to build the solar sail equivalent on the other end to decelerate you.
[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/O%27Neill_cylinder
And let's aside the serious ethical issue of you choosing to board such a ship vs the offspring you have who definitely did not consent, some of whom may not even make it to the destination.
So a generational colony ship looks a lot like an O'Neil Cylinder [1]. It can spin to create 1g gravity and support enough people to make it to the destination.
The issue is energy. An orbital can support itself with solar power when around a star and doesn't need a form of propulsion. An interstellar ship will need an alternative energy source and also have a propulsion system that can sufficiently accelerate and decelerate. The energy budget for the propulsion is so large that the life support energy budget is a rounding error.
The only realistic policy I see is solar sails. This avoids the reaction mass issue. You need to decelerate at the other end. Part of that you get from drag in the interstellar medium. You either carry reaction mass for the rest or you go ahead and use automated systems to build the solar sail equivalent on the other end to decelerate you.
[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/O%27Neill_cylinder
It's interesting how frequently the issue of unborn children's consent is brought up. This consent is impossible, it's never existed and never will exist, and the only alternative seems to be nihilism.
Yeah, its not like kids today are consenting towards living on this earth now in this age. As long as the ship isn't just some piece of trash death trap and has decent living standards I don't see the problem.
I strongly recommend "The Conspiracy Against The Human Race" by Thomas Ligotti in the context of this line of thinking. The main point he makes is that acceptance of reality as it is, is unthinkable to almost everyone, and we all use different strategies to avoid facing it, at least some of the time.
This is definitely one way how to do it - but it should be possible to also get fast if you really want to[0][1] + likely also increase human lifespan/hibernate/immortal cyborgs. So there might be whole other class of interstellar ships - much more compact and with its own unique class of moral issues!
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_salt-water_rocket
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antimatter_rocket
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_salt-water_rocket
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antimatter_rocket
The winning design assumes redundant toroidal fusion reactors.
Having a fusion engine or fusion reactor is basically hand-waving away the energy problem.
Controlled fusion has a fundamental problem: neutrons. Even if you solve the problem of container destruction (ie neutron embrittlement), which is significant, you still face the problem of significant energy loss to the system through high-energy free neutrons.
Stars solve this problem by simply being really large so a free neutron can't really go that far without hitting another nucleus, particularly because fusion happens at the core.
The hope with commercial fusion research is that we can somehow avoid the container destruction issue and have sufficient energy generation (given the energy inputs) despite the free neutron energy loss but it's unclear if that'll ever happen.
Controlled fusion has a fundamental problem: neutrons. Even if you solve the problem of container destruction (ie neutron embrittlement), which is significant, you still face the problem of significant energy loss to the system through high-energy free neutrons.
Stars solve this problem by simply being really large so a free neutron can't really go that far without hitting another nucleus, particularly because fusion happens at the core.
The hope with commercial fusion research is that we can somehow avoid the container destruction issue and have sufficient energy generation (given the energy inputs) despite the free neutron energy loss but it's unclear if that'll ever happen.
IIRC (Its a long document, and I only skimmed it) they assumed 20% efficiency on behalf of the reactors.
I think they just wanted a plausible future energy source that they didnt have to look at too closely.
My first issue with the design is that it looked like a decent percentage of the planet would have to be launched into space just to build the thing.
A lot of the space math looked alright, but theres several issues of practicality.
>Even if you solve the problem of container destruction
No idea if this is related, but everywhere they needed 1 reactor, they had 4. 2 in active/active failover, and 2 cold spares. It seemed relatively easy for them to perform maintenance on these. But its just heaps more launch mass, heaps more acceleration fuel, and a lot more deceleration fuel.
I think they just wanted a plausible future energy source that they didnt have to look at too closely.
My first issue with the design is that it looked like a decent percentage of the planet would have to be launched into space just to build the thing.
A lot of the space math looked alright, but theres several issues of practicality.
>Even if you solve the problem of container destruction
No idea if this is related, but everywhere they needed 1 reactor, they had 4. 2 in active/active failover, and 2 cold spares. It seemed relatively easy for them to perform maintenance on these. But its just heaps more launch mass, heaps more acceleration fuel, and a lot more deceleration fuel.
I'll admit it: I've clicked because of the books....
the shrike has noted your interest
Follows a classic sci-fi series arc, IMO. Brilliant, enthralling and at times terrifying first book, followed by several tomes of 'meh'. See also Night's Dawn.
[deleted]
Kim Stanley Robinson's Aurora [1] is a great novel about the hubris of generation starships.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aurora_(novel)
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aurora_(novel)
[deleted]
I spent some time contemplating the analog of a shower or a bath and generally washing oneself and how that would look in a zero gravity based environment.
My favorite idea is "water" injected into a contained environment to produce a particular pressure and or flow setting with a scuba type hose for breathing. All liquid is evacuated through the base and an air jet helps produce a drying effect plus clear out the capsule before exiting. The same water is recycled as much as possible after a filtering desalinization and any chemicals used for the washing process would be closely matched with the recycling process. I toyed with the idea of multiple pods in a spindle rotating to simulate gravity but I'm not sure it's worth the effort since you can produce a type of pressure through controlling the liquid syrup injected into the limited space.
My favorite idea is "water" injected into a contained environment to produce a particular pressure and or flow setting with a scuba type hose for breathing. All liquid is evacuated through the base and an air jet helps produce a drying effect plus clear out the capsule before exiting. The same water is recycled as much as possible after a filtering desalinization and any chemicals used for the washing process would be closely matched with the recycling process. I toyed with the idea of multiple pods in a spindle rotating to simulate gravity but I'm not sure it's worth the effort since you can produce a type of pressure through controlling the liquid syrup injected into the limited space.
You are on the right track - this is pretty much how the showers on Skylab & Mir worked:
https://www.reddit.com/r/interestingasfuck/comments/1j1ijsw/...
https://direct.mit.edu/thld/article-abstract/doi/10.1162/thl...
It worked well enough, but ISS opted for wet towels & I am not sure what the Chinese are using currently. Will be interesting what some of the upcoming commercial space stations opt for. :)
https://www.reddit.com/r/interestingasfuck/comments/1j1ijsw/...
https://direct.mit.edu/thld/article-abstract/doi/10.1162/thl...
It worked well enough, but ISS opted for wet towels & I am not sure what the Chinese are using currently. Will be interesting what some of the upcoming commercial space stations opt for. :)
Drowning in my own shower is a new kind of fear you've just unlocked on me
One thing that I think is fun now that we have embryo freezing is that we can transport absolute masses of genetic diversity into the future, so even a small crew of a generation starship need not worry about interbreeding risk. Social risks abound, of course, but we could easily supply hundreds of thousands of embryos into the far future so that concerns of a minimum viable population are no longer valid.
That eliminates biology as a constraint. What a life for our descendants so consigned, generations to live and die on a ship so that their descendants in turn could one day revolve around a foreign sun. I'm sure at some nth generation they will resent us for sending them away from the happiness of Spaceship Earth.
It would be an amusing result if the only ones with the fortitude necessary to endure this are those religious enough in belief and purpose.
That eliminates biology as a constraint. What a life for our descendants so consigned, generations to live and die on a ship so that their descendants in turn could one day revolve around a foreign sun. I'm sure at some nth generation they will resent us for sending them away from the happiness of Spaceship Earth.
It would be an amusing result if the only ones with the fortitude necessary to endure this are those religious enough in belief and purpose.
Looking at view #28 in the winning presentation, the system carries 200 shuttles that can each do a one-way trip to the target planet carrying 10 people and delivering 5 tons of cargo. So the overall system can deliver up to 2000 people and 1000 tons -in comparatively small pieces - to the planetary surface.
It would be good to see some discussion of how you can bootstrap a colony (let alone a civilisation) under these very tight constraints. For example, whether flight systems would be cannibalised to support the colonists, and how the colonists would establish a viable, self-sustaining tech tree (including critical life support) after landing, where there may be essentially no immediately accessible raw materials.
It would be good to see some discussion of how you can bootstrap a colony (let alone a civilisation) under these very tight constraints. For example, whether flight systems would be cannibalised to support the colonists, and how the colonists would establish a viable, self-sustaining tech tree (including critical life support) after landing, where there may be essentially no immediately accessible raw materials.
I think this again shows an unhealthy fixation on planets. Sure, they are nice and big and if you are very lucky might be even habitable.
But given that you already have a massive mobile self sufficient workstation in space it would IMHO make much more sense to start with setting up some simple in space infrastructure first upon arrival & then using that to run a space to ground transport link. That should give you all the benefits of starting with a space based civilization in the new star system rather than stranding 2000 at potentially hostile planet with no means of support and space based assistance, battling for survival.
Well, unless you really like all those lost colony novels with low tech human societies existing on exotic planets that were not able to keep their tech level. ;-)
But given that you already have a massive mobile self sufficient workstation in space it would IMHO make much more sense to start with setting up some simple in space infrastructure first upon arrival & then using that to run a space to ground transport link. That should give you all the benefits of starting with a space based civilization in the new star system rather than stranding 2000 at potentially hostile planet with no means of support and space based assistance, battling for survival.
Well, unless you really like all those lost colony novels with low tech human societies existing on exotic planets that were not able to keep their tech level. ;-)
Yes, exactly. Why not mine a few asteroids, deploy comms and mapping sats, etc.
Building a ground civ from scratch would be hard enough for anyone, let alone a space-adapted population who have spent generations being coddled by AI, and who have exactly zero experience of planet-side ops with hostile terrain and meteorology, with physical tools that they have never used in an operational setting.
Building a ground civ from scratch would be hard enough for anyone, let alone a space-adapted population who have spent generations being coddled by AI, and who have exactly zero experience of planet-side ops with hostile terrain and meteorology, with physical tools that they have never used in an operational setting.
Yep - it really makes sense to do it like that - I don't say planets are useless, but if you just arrived after possibly hundreds of years in deep space, you might as well par you ark somewhere safe and resource rich, do any repairs or upgrades, gather some resources, while possibly doing some initial exploration by probes or even small initial crewed missions.
It might be different for other missing profiles, like some very compact minimalistic missions where everyone is in some sort of suspended animation & you dump the whole ship into a suitable planetary environment, as to ship is just not setup to sustain them for any period on board. But this requires quite substantial advances in both stashing colonists for possibly hundreds of years without killing them as well as getting a compact ship to a star system with habitable planet, decelerating it there and landing it.
Seems more likely we will have the first trillion of extra terrestrial humans living in diverse habitats built from local materials at a nearby star much sooner than something like that.
It might be different for other missing profiles, like some very compact minimalistic missions where everyone is in some sort of suspended animation & you dump the whole ship into a suitable planetary environment, as to ship is just not setup to sustain them for any period on board. But this requires quite substantial advances in both stashing colonists for possibly hundreds of years without killing them as well as getting a compact ship to a star system with habitable planet, decelerating it there and landing it.
Seems more likely we will have the first trillion of extra terrestrial humans living in diverse habitats built from local materials at a nearby star much sooner than something like that.
My design would be to send a nanobot builder. Then you could beam it instructions on what to build, based on what it finds at its destination.
Sort of like sending a cell capable of life and creating more life.
Aliens are always sending such probes here in scifi, so why don't we do it, too?
Sort of like sending a cell capable of life and creating more life.
Aliens are always sending such probes here in scifi, so why don't we do it, too?
How would you power it?
Solar sail or nuclear?
How big would the payload be?
Solar sail or nuclear?
How big would the payload be?
> How would you power it?
Given that the payload would be tiny compared to a generation ship, I expect the powerplant would be able to get it there much faster.
> Solar sail or nuclear?
Solar sail won't work outside the solar system.
> How big would the payload be?
We cannot build it yet. But I expect the technology to do it seems possible.
Given that the payload would be tiny compared to a generation ship, I expect the powerplant would be able to get it there much faster.
> Solar sail or nuclear?
Solar sail won't work outside the solar system.
> How big would the payload be?
We cannot build it yet. But I expect the technology to do it seems possible.
Solar sail might help slow it down at destination + possibly a close solar Oberth maneuver to capture in an orbit in the target system.
Being a probe sized craft, deceleration as well as a very close flyby close to a star should be much more doable than with a big honking interstellar ark.
As for power - even a small nuclear reactor would be fine initially if it can last long enough for it to land somewhere suitable and start spamming solar panels. Then you are finally ready to get going on you first extra-solar Benchy. ;-)
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oberth_effect [1] https://www.centauri-dreams.org/2021/10/06/assessing-the-obe...
Being a probe sized craft, deceleration as well as a very close flyby close to a star should be much more doable than with a big honking interstellar ark.
As for power - even a small nuclear reactor would be fine initially if it can last long enough for it to land somewhere suitable and start spamming solar panels. Then you are finally ready to get going on you first extra-solar Benchy. ;-)
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oberth_effect [1] https://www.centauri-dreams.org/2021/10/06/assessing-the-obe...
This seems like a VaultTec idea.
This project has invoked a lot of very interesting dialogue and discussion -
Very fun fit for HN.
Someone mentioned Kim Stanley Robinson's book: Aurora. (There is an audiobook version.)
I recommend it also... It is a bit long winded but presents a lot of detail and thinking on many of the ideas discussed in this comment section. A very fun read. A grand adventure similar to old school science fiction books.
One of the brilliant concluding quotes, went something like;
The earth is an interstellar spaceship too.
One thing I find amusing about generation ships is that the prerequisite understanding of systems ecology, biology, political organization, etc. required to actually make them successful completely obviates the need to actually go anywhere with them.
If you can somehow obtain the knowledge of how to get a sexually reproducing population of n awake behaving human beings to successfully live in a tin can for 500 years then it is hard to see why you wouldn't just make more tin cans and replicate the process.
If you can somehow obtain the knowledge of how to get a sexually reproducing population of n awake behaving human beings to successfully live in a tin can for 500 years then it is hard to see why you wouldn't just make more tin cans and replicate the process.
The fundamental problem with Ark ships. They're just much harder to build versions of fully self-sufficient orbital colonies. Not only do you need to install the enormous thrusters, but you have to be able to operate without any inputs at all. No solar power. No imports of mass from asteroids or elsewhere. No increasing genetic diversity via swapping people between other colonies. What advantage is there in moving your orbital colony to a different solar system?
Slightly less chance of dying in very tiny solar system destroying effect. Traded to much higher risk of dying for some other risk or system failure. Anything affecting solar system likely affects also any ark on the way... And well inside solar system you might be able to get some support. Where as outside none...
Just what sort of population would enter that risk profile? Especially when there is little to gain for themselves.
Just what sort of population would enter that risk profile? Especially when there is little to gain for themselves.
Even if the sun explodes you're probably better off staying in the solar system and picking through the remnants than trying to make the trip out to another solar system.
I have grown increasingly to think that interstellar travel will be done by acceleration/decceleration superstructures; moon sized railgun loops like particle accelerators except for spacecraft.
Some form of Von Neumann machinery will be required to construct and maintain these.
This kind of system is the only way to:
1. Escape the tyranny of the rocket equation and
2. Harness the power of solar energy for transportation to its fullest
I wrote a draft proposal about this if anyone is interested!
This kind of system is the only way to:
1. Escape the tyranny of the rocket equation and
2. Harness the power of solar energy for transportation to its fullest
I wrote a draft proposal about this if anyone is interested!
On this thread people are pointing out many potential problems with all of these solutions. I think all have an element of validity but in the end a much bigger problem is the complete unknowns.
The good news is that there is a system for measuring the effectiveness of the potential solutions. That system is called "reality". If humanity builds a single "ark" then it is very likely to fail. The trick is that we need to get the technology to the point where we're launching dozens or hundreds of these. Only then will we discover what the actual problems and limitations are, and how many of the worries and problems will simple be irrelevant because human ingenuity will find workarounds.
Joseph Henrich, the anthropologist, characterized human technological progress and innovation by saying:
"I think that humans are pretty bad at designing institutions from the top down, but we do know how to design variation and selection systems"
We don't need one correct solution, we need some attempts and some bad copies of those attempts to collectively move towards solutions.
The good news is that there is a system for measuring the effectiveness of the potential solutions. That system is called "reality". If humanity builds a single "ark" then it is very likely to fail. The trick is that we need to get the technology to the point where we're launching dozens or hundreds of these. Only then will we discover what the actual problems and limitations are, and how many of the worries and problems will simple be irrelevant because human ingenuity will find workarounds.
Joseph Henrich, the anthropologist, characterized human technological progress and innovation by saying:
"I think that humans are pretty bad at designing institutions from the top down, but we do know how to design variation and selection systems"
We don't need one correct solution, we need some attempts and some bad copies of those attempts to collectively move towards solutions.
The generation ship in KSR's "Aurora" failed due to unknown unknowns. I'd very much hate to have lived on it as it did, and I would be unwilling to condemn tens or hundreds of thousands of people to the same fate as an experiment.
The whole oh-no-prions from hell was kinda unconvincing, as well as choosing to go back to Sol instead of just building up living space via artificial habitats in the target solar system.
If you can refuel a fucking interstellar ark in field conditions, you totally can also keep it running and expand it and your living space using local resources instead.
If you can refuel a fucking interstellar ark in field conditions, you totally can also keep it running and expand it and your living space using local resources instead.
There were numerous ships that attempted to traverse the Atlantic to form colonies in the Americas. Many were lost, or died out, or failed to thrive for unknown unknowns. And many survived and flourished for reasons not even the settlers understood, and which frankly we will probably never understand because the moment has passed.
In Aurora society took a one-shot approach. This strikes me as unrealistic; why weren't there dozens of competing attempts? I thought the book was one of the best treatments of generation ships that I've ever seen in scifi except for this. And I don't love the "also we discovered new physics and made a sentient AI on our ship somehow" plots (the latter is also a reason I never liked "The Moon is a Harsh Mistress"). I get that it feels unjust or unfair or morally wrong to subject new generations to an experiment that they never signed up for, but that's just the way that humanity works -- all of our children are part of an experiment that they never signed up for, because none of us know (or can even conceivably know) the "right" way or environment in which to raise children.
In Aurora society took a one-shot approach. This strikes me as unrealistic; why weren't there dozens of competing attempts? I thought the book was one of the best treatments of generation ships that I've ever seen in scifi except for this. And I don't love the "also we discovered new physics and made a sentient AI on our ship somehow" plots (the latter is also a reason I never liked "The Moon is a Harsh Mistress"). I get that it feels unjust or unfair or morally wrong to subject new generations to an experiment that they never signed up for, but that's just the way that humanity works -- all of our children are part of an experiment that they never signed up for, because none of us know (or can even conceivably know) the "right" way or environment in which to raise children.
I liked how Earth just went "we will just send more ships, LOL". And the book portrais it like a bad thing. ;-)
No opinions on the ship itself, but the social proposals are very interesting :-)
Earth biomes will be kept intact with respect to their natural evolution. But human society will be treated as an amoral engineering problem seeking to optimize a few measurable parameters chosen up front. There is little sense in this proposal that human beings will bring along with them original sin or whatever you want to call it. But what allows human beings to flourish and keeps societies together, especially in conditions of scarcity (very much unlike the conditions of say the past half century), may not be obvious to the project planners.
In fact, much of what has been handed down to us in the legal and opaque cultural and religious traditions that have successfully survived such stresses in the past, is gleefully discarded.
The social engineering proposed is of the most dystopian and heavy-handed variety: it involves taking a group of volunteers to Antarctica to format them to a supposed sociocultural blank slate, followed by "characteristics monitoring". Despite the apparent care for superficial day-to-day happiness, human beings are to be indoctrinated to see themselves as discardable resources. They are not just governed with "mere" discipline, but with a program of violent population control (e.g. "maximum 2 childrens", "not necessarily with the same partner", "euthanasia", "not owned by the individual", ...).
So humans on Chrysalis will decide over every single aspect of life and death, not for themselves but for each other. But this time, unlike all earlier times, it will work because they're going to keep "governance architecture liquid, horizontal and inclusive" and "open source communities" and "not ethically compulsory" and based on "deep scenario exploration".
Earth biomes will be kept intact with respect to their natural evolution. But human society will be treated as an amoral engineering problem seeking to optimize a few measurable parameters chosen up front. There is little sense in this proposal that human beings will bring along with them original sin or whatever you want to call it. But what allows human beings to flourish and keeps societies together, especially in conditions of scarcity (very much unlike the conditions of say the past half century), may not be obvious to the project planners.
In fact, much of what has been handed down to us in the legal and opaque cultural and religious traditions that have successfully survived such stresses in the past, is gleefully discarded.
The social engineering proposed is of the most dystopian and heavy-handed variety: it involves taking a group of volunteers to Antarctica to format them to a supposed sociocultural blank slate, followed by "characteristics monitoring". Despite the apparent care for superficial day-to-day happiness, human beings are to be indoctrinated to see themselves as discardable resources. They are not just governed with "mere" discipline, but with a program of violent population control (e.g. "maximum 2 childrens", "not necessarily with the same partner", "euthanasia", "not owned by the individual", ...).
So humans on Chrysalis will decide over every single aspect of life and death, not for themselves but for each other. But this time, unlike all earlier times, it will work because they're going to keep "governance architecture liquid, horizontal and inclusive" and "open source communities" and "not ethically compulsory" and based on "deep scenario exploration".
> taking a group of volunteers to Antarctica to format them to a supposed sociocultural blank slate
I'd love to see an actual blueprint for making this work. I don't believe in it at all.
> They are not just governed with "mere" discipline
Unclear to me what discipline exists. There's no mention of crime and punishment or enforcement. It seems assumed that you'll have indoctrinated everyone sufficiently to not need it?
My working model of indoctrination and control is based on power imbalance. Once they're on the ship, I don't think "the AI's will control everything" is gonna fly forever.
I'd love to see an actual blueprint for making this work. I don't believe in it at all.
> They are not just governed with "mere" discipline
Unclear to me what discipline exists. There's no mention of crime and punishment or enforcement. It seems assumed that you'll have indoctrinated everyone sufficiently to not need it?
My working model of indoctrination and control is based on power imbalance. Once they're on the ship, I don't think "the AI's will control everything" is gonna fly forever.
[deleted]
For a deep dive into the psychological aspects of a forming colony I recommend KSR's Mars trilogy.
> Habitability for 1,000 ± 500 people over centuries
Is this enough for a healthy breeding population?
Is this enough for a healthy breeding population?
The human population might have been reduced to as few as 1000 individuals at one point:
https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.abq7487
https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.abq7487
Follow up work has shown that result is a statistical artifact/does not replicate [1,2,3].
[1]https://academic.oup.com/genetics/article-abstract/229/1/iya...
[2]https://academic.oup.com/mbe/article/42/2/msaf041/8005733
[3]https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2024.03.25.586640v1
[1]https://academic.oup.com/genetics/article-abstract/229/1/iya...
[2]https://academic.oup.com/mbe/article/42/2/msaf041/8005733
[3]https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2024.03.25.586640v1
Are there two proposed bottlenecks, one at 900 kya and another at 70 kya? I'd only really heard about the latter.
The paper linked in that post proposes a bottleneck at 900Kya in the ancestors of all modern humans. There is a bottleneck associated with the migration out of Africa and the peopling of the world that many populations have, but not all. Based on genetic data the timing is between 100-50Kya, with a lot of the uncertainty coming from converting generation times to years (i.e. how many years on average between parents and offspring). This is a nice reference: https://sci-hub.se/https://www.nature.com/articles/nature213...
I searched for "minimum space colony size," and the numbers are all over the place. Some says as low as 50 and others are over 40k.
That's a problem that's easy to fix with a fridge and a bunch of embryos. They take practically no space.
The question is how well will they hold up for 400 years?
Well, that, and how do you ensure that the people 400 years from now would know what they are for or how to implant them?
Lots of unknowns. Would make for an interesting story though
Well, that, and how do you ensure that the people 400 years from now would know what they are for or how to implant them?
Lots of unknowns. Would make for an interesting story though
> how do you ensure that the people 400 years from now would know what they are for or how to implant them?
A ship travelling at 0.01c for 400 years could get 4 ly away. They'd still be able to be coached. More likely: their computers would still be able to be updated.
A ship travelling at 0.01c for 400 years could get 4 ly away. They'd still be able to be coached. More likely: their computers would still be able to be updated.
Of course there is this thing is that while they were coasting faster technology was developed and another ship arrived way before them, with better computers, engines, everything.
So far the only known technology to bring embryos to life is through alive female host, so you still need healthy, and on top of that, willing population to use embryos.
... Yes?
The question specifically was:
> Is this enough for a healthy breeding population?
Through the use of technology, this limit can be completely sidestepped.
The question specifically was:
> Is this enough for a healthy breeding population?
Through the use of technology, this limit can be completely sidestepped.
It should be, but you can't be picky.
most importantly, will we carry 1000 of the best minds of our generation, 1000 hairdressers/insurance salesmen/management consultants or 1000 billionaires and their direct families?
I vote 1000 billionaires and family. Then the rest of us can get to work repairing the damage they've done.
Downvoters apparently still sore about the Golgafrinchan B Ark incident.
Worked out well enough for the House of Habsburg. ;-)
[deleted]
I mean you could make sure to limit couplings to 3rd cousins and beyond which eliminates like 99.5% of genetic problems for many generations,having an even more diverse starting group also will help, and if you really wanted to make sure you could also send along some eggs and sperm to throw in the gene pool at times.
bruh noah did it with 2
There were 8: Noah, his wife, their three sons (Shem, Ham, and Japheth), and their three wives. If so, there must have been a whole of inbreeding in later generations.
Aside: The biblical story of the Ark and the flood in ripped off wholesale from Sumerian and Akkadian narratives.
Aside: The biblical story of the Ark and the flood in ripped off wholesale from Sumerian and Akkadian narratives.
You mean God sent word to the Sumerians and Akkadians !
He also told them the story of Moses being found in the reeds, for them to pass on.
Facts?
I was hoping the challenge would be about launch or propulsion mechanisms, both with and without human occupants (the design space relaxes a lot if interstellar scientific probes are acceptable, say for parallax imaging of the universe, etc.).
A Robert Heinlein story about how this will likely go:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=13VS_klDrio
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=13VS_klDrio
What's the cost for getting all that to space? Is it still about $4,000/kg?
What's a rough idea about how much Chrysalis would weigh?
2.4M tons it says. ~2.2B kg = $8.8 trillion dollars just for the launch costs alone?
I also thought this was interesting from the 2nd place booklet. Did not know this.
>The chance of a successful pregnancy in deep space without a geomagnetic field is essentially zero.
>During mitosis and meiosis, microtubules depend on a stable magnetic field to orient the mitotic spindle and ensure accurate chromosome segregation — processes critical for embryonic growth. A spacecraft lacking any magnetic field would halt human reproduction, dooming both the mission and the survival of the colony.
What's a rough idea about how much Chrysalis would weigh?
2.4M tons it says. ~2.2B kg = $8.8 trillion dollars just for the launch costs alone?
I also thought this was interesting from the 2nd place booklet. Did not know this.
>The chance of a successful pregnancy in deep space without a geomagnetic field is essentially zero.
>During mitosis and meiosis, microtubules depend on a stable magnetic field to orient the mitotic spindle and ensure accurate chromosome segregation — processes critical for embryonic growth. A spacecraft lacking any magnetic field would halt human reproduction, dooming both the mission and the survival of the colony.
>During mitosis and meiosis, microtubules depend on a stable magnetic field to orient the mitotic spindle and ensure accurate chromosome segregation — processes critical for embryonic growth. A spacecraft lacking any magnetic field would halt human reproduction, dooming both the mission and the survival of the colony.
That seems wrong to me. The last time I calculated it out, the Earth's magnetic field isn't that strong, and for someone on earth's surface is dwarfed even by high voltage power lines. This is due to the Earth magnetic field radiating out from the iron core which is much farther away at the surface compared to the power lines, and declining by the square root law.
That seems wrong to me. The last time I calculated it out, the Earth's magnetic field isn't that strong, and for someone on earth's surface is dwarfed even by high voltage power lines. This is due to the Earth magnetic field radiating out from the iron core which is much farther away at the surface compared to the power lines, and declining by the square root law.
You know I think you are right and it really doesn't speak well for these submissions that they are getting stuff like that wrong. I was stupidly taking them at their word that they had researched this.
https://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/5h9is2/why_does...
It makes sense because if any of what they said was true we would have to constantly be worrying about magnetic fields around us, which are much stronger than the earth's, affecting our mitosis and meiosis. Your sperm would be completely screwed up if you had a magnet in your pocket when they were created.
https://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/5h9is2/why_does...
It makes sense because if any of what they said was true we would have to constantly be worrying about magnetic fields around us, which are much stronger than the earth's, affecting our mitosis and meiosis. Your sperm would be completely screwed up if you had a magnet in your pocket when they were created.
>During mitosis and meiosis, microtubules depend on a stable magnetic field to orient the mitotic spindle and ensure accurate chromosome segregation — processes critical for embryonic growth. A spacecraft lacking any magnetic field would halt human reproduction, dooming both the mission and the survival of the colony.
Speaking as a biologist that's not true.
Speaking as a biologist that's not true.
They suggest that a lot could come from the moon. This page has the rough breakdown of where each part would come from https://www.canva.com/design/DAGmr3ubC8E/LHHAeeAIGGQe_TkZVs-...
Yeah, no way space projects this size are built from materials lifted from earths gravity well. Like, you could probably do it as an achievement with launch loops[0] or an space elevator[1]. But it makes no sense if you have material ready to use just flaoting in space (asteroids) or in a much more shallow gravity well (Lunar stuff can be easily launched to orbit via mass drivers).
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Launch_loop [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_elevator
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Launch_loop [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_elevator
it would be a lot more practical with a space elevator.
You'd think A. Scott Howe might at least smile in his photo bio.
He looks like one guy you don't want to end up cohabitating with you for centuries on a generational starship.
He looks like one guy you don't want to end up cohabitating with you for centuries on a generational starship.
> The idea behind a generation ship is that the initial crew would live, reproduce, and die on the ship, with their descendants continuing the journey until reaching the destination.
What a shame -- their basic premise is grievously mistaken. When we have the means to launch interstellar pioneering craft, people will have figured out the most logical, sustainable approach -- launch a set of frozen embryos, not a set of arguing adults.
The craft would gain speed toward a suitable target, then drift for centuries, no need to waste resources on living, arguing human beings. When the destination is reached, the craft will land and spawn a human crew at the destination -- using artificial wombs and robots to guide the children into adulthood.
Someone might object to the idea of letting robots teach humans, but hey -- look around. It's already true.
What a shame -- their basic premise is grievously mistaken. When we have the means to launch interstellar pioneering craft, people will have figured out the most logical, sustainable approach -- launch a set of frozen embryos, not a set of arguing adults.
The craft would gain speed toward a suitable target, then drift for centuries, no need to waste resources on living, arguing human beings. When the destination is reached, the craft will land and spawn a human crew at the destination -- using artificial wombs and robots to guide the children into adulthood.
Someone might object to the idea of letting robots teach humans, but hey -- look around. It's already true.
I'm here just wondering if people get dizzy in a spinning space station...
A large spacecraft doesn't have to spin very fast to simulate 1g. So probably not.
2-3 rpm seems to be the speeds from the winning submission, varying depending on which level you're on. (Closer to the center = faster rotation to equal 1g).
I bet that their descendants would find the idea of seasickness amusing, since they would probably be nearly immune to it.
I bet that their descendants would find the idea of seasickness amusing, since they would probably be nearly immune to it.
I was always curious about this. In some of the star wars movies, you dont see any spin, yet they are not floating around (e.g., notice how Orson Krennic has a backdrop of a planet, isnt floating, yet the planet isnt spinning https://allfortheboys.com/ben-mendelsohn/)
I know Interstellar did not ignore the spin, but do movies like Star Wars just ignore the entire concept?
I know Interstellar did not ignore the spin, but do movies like Star Wars just ignore the entire concept?
I think they have artificial gravity in star wars iirc
And anti-gravity, as seen in the many machines and craft that easily hover around.
Most popular sci-fi in visual media up until recent examples like The Expanse and Cowboy Bebop (though only because the remake revived interest in the original) are soft sci-fi when it comes to walking around in spaceships.
This got me thinking. There are fairly hard takes on most fictional technology but I don't know that I've ever come across one for artificial gravity. At least no examples immediately come to mind.
I guess that's just too far out in the fictional physics system weeds for even the more dedicated of authors.
I guess that's just too far out in the fictional physics system weeds for even the more dedicated of authors.
Gravity is one of the four fundamental interactions (albeit the weakest one), perhaps trying to create it artificially is a bit beyond even hypothetical physics. Sounds like the latest suggestion for it is from 2016:
https://www.sciencealert.com/a-mathematician-has-proposed-a-...
> Now, Füzfa has shown, mathematically speaking, that by stacking large superconducting electromagnets we would be able to produce a very weak gravitational field, and that we'd be able to detect it using highly sensitive interferometers. These interferometers would work by basically superimposing gravitational fields on top of each other so that physicists could obtain information about them.
https://www.sciencealert.com/a-mathematician-has-proposed-a-...
> Now, Füzfa has shown, mathematically speaking, that by stacking large superconducting electromagnets we would be able to produce a very weak gravitational field, and that we'd be able to detect it using highly sensitive interferometers. These interferometers would work by basically superimposing gravitational fields on top of each other so that physicists could obtain information about them.
Right, but in a fictional universe we aren't constrained by real world physics. Yet no "hard" takes on artificial gravity come to mind. I assume this is partly because any explanation would be difficult to work into an interesting narrative (unless you consider physics journal articles and mathematical equations interesting) and also because "simulating" the downstream impacts of changes at such a low level of physics just sounds incredibly daunting and probably near impossible to get right.
The linked article is interesting. I'm amused by the mental image of the Millennium Falcon crumpling like a tin can into a singularity when magnets of ludicrous strength under the deck plating are suddenly switched on.
The linked article is interesting. I'm amused by the mental image of the Millennium Falcon crumpling like a tin can into a singularity when magnets of ludicrous strength under the deck plating are suddenly switched on.
> Yet no "hard" takes on artificial gravity come to mind.
Yeah, I’m just suggesting maybe there just haven’t been any hypothetical speculative physics concepts that could explain artificial gravity. At least with FTL we’ve got wormholes, the Alcubierre drive, zero-point energy, etc.
> any explanation would be difficult to work into an interesting narrative
With sci-fi people seem to like explanations of FTL well enough, both the soft fantastical kind and the hard speculative physics kind. I think artificial gravity just needs its own visual/conceptual equivalent to the going into hyperspace effect, or warping space, or stargate relays, etc.
But artificial gravity itself is indeed conceptually and perhaps literally “low” because it’s much more mundane than other aspects. You might as well explain it away by everyone wearing magnetized boots. Tractor beams / interdictors with gravity well projectors are neat, though.
Yeah, I’m just suggesting maybe there just haven’t been any hypothetical speculative physics concepts that could explain artificial gravity. At least with FTL we’ve got wormholes, the Alcubierre drive, zero-point energy, etc.
> any explanation would be difficult to work into an interesting narrative
With sci-fi people seem to like explanations of FTL well enough, both the soft fantastical kind and the hard speculative physics kind. I think artificial gravity just needs its own visual/conceptual equivalent to the going into hyperspace effect, or warping space, or stargate relays, etc.
But artificial gravity itself is indeed conceptually and perhaps literally “low” because it’s much more mundane than other aspects. You might as well explain it away by everyone wearing magnetized boots. Tractor beams / interdictors with gravity well projectors are neat, though.
> it’s much more mundane than other aspects
Is it though? It brings to mind the humorous essay that attempted to extrapolate in a hard sci-fi manner the consequences of the existence of phasers and teleporters in star trek. It seems likely to be a mundane usage which is merely the tip of the iceberg for an absurdly powerful technology.
> the hard speculative physics kind
Apologies if I'm off the mark but just to be clear you don't need speculative real world physics for a "hard" take. All you need is an author dedicated enough to invent his own set of rules and then faithfully "simulate" it. It's just that most authors are lazy and go with speculative real world physics as the base.
At some point I started seeing people conflate hard sci-fi with real world physics and I'm not sure where that came from.
Is it though? It brings to mind the humorous essay that attempted to extrapolate in a hard sci-fi manner the consequences of the existence of phasers and teleporters in star trek. It seems likely to be a mundane usage which is merely the tip of the iceberg for an absurdly powerful technology.
> the hard speculative physics kind
Apologies if I'm off the mark but just to be clear you don't need speculative real world physics for a "hard" take. All you need is an author dedicated enough to invent his own set of rules and then faithfully "simulate" it. It's just that most authors are lazy and go with speculative real world physics as the base.
At some point I started seeing people conflate hard sci-fi with real world physics and I'm not sure where that came from.
David Webers Honorverse is mostly build on handwaved artificial gravity and FTL being possible. Largely it is hard take on whole thing. Though I think there is some other stuff as well.
It does do a lot with ship to ship fleet combat and at least some implications how ships work inside the constraints.
It does do a lot with ship to ship fleet combat and at least some implications how ships work inside the constraints.
I am guessing that electromagnets strong enough to generate 1g of gravity would:
-require vast amounts of power
-be so heavy that most of the 1g would come from the mass of the electromagnets!
-destroy anything for quite some distance (including themselves)
-require vast amounts of power
-be so heavy that most of the 1g would come from the mass of the electromagnets!
-destroy anything for quite some distance (including themselves)
Meanwhile biodome couldn't keep an artificial ocean from acidifying.
Do you mean Biosphere?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biosphere_2
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biosphere_2
OH yea, I confused it with the movie name.
Surprisingly, the wikipage fails to mention it was a failed experiment and doesn't mention the ocean issue at all.
Surprisingly, the wikipage fails to mention it was a failed experiment and doesn't mention the ocean issue at all.
Well wasn't that like the first real attempt on this & to a degree a non-optimal one at that ?
Its not like sustainable extraterrestrial habitats will not be needed elsewhere anyway, so it should be hopefully long established technology (by the lava tube settlers of the Moon or the Oneil Cylinder bunch from L3) when you do the first interstellar ship.
Its not like sustainable extraterrestrial habitats will not be needed elsewhere anyway, so it should be hopefully long established technology (by the lava tube settlers of the Moon or the Oneil Cylinder bunch from L3) when you do the first interstellar ship.
Tweens and teenagers in space: What can possibly go wrong?
I thought preservation of the species was the goal
Teen angst with no personal space or privacy. Seems like torture for everyone.
The winning design had large, personal habitats.
When can we start?
Send Elon Musk, all the billionaires, and 99.9% of lawyers and politicians first.
Feed them like Gaza Humanitarian Foundation.
Feed them like Gaza Humanitarian Foundation.
Anyone enamoured with this type of stuff should watch the movie Aniara. It's a great movie that illustrates what a delusional fantasy interstellar space travel of this form is.
I am a big space exploration fan, but beyond our solar system, it's probably best thought of as a fantasy entertainment genre.
I am a big space exploration fan, but beyond our solar system, it's probably best thought of as a fantasy entertainment genre.
Aniara is not a good example - the ship was supposed to do a regular interplanetary flight orogonally before ending up on unplanned interstellar trip to oblivion due to drive failure before they could break to their destination planet (+ some apparent strife in the Solar System at the time, so no one could mount a rescue mission in time).
That is totally something that can happen if you have a high performance interplanetary craft that does trips between planets in weeks - any trajectory is likely hyperbolic and if your drive fails before you brake again & no one can catch up with you in time you are kinda screwed.
That is totally something that can happen if you have a high performance interplanetary craft that does trips between planets in weeks - any trajectory is likely hyperbolic and if your drive fails before you brake again & no one can catch up with you in time you are kinda screwed.
space is for boomers, just fix earth.
Indeed, the challenge of fixing Earth is much, much simpler than that of constructing a contained self-sufficient habitat that can operate without input from Earth for hundreds of years. And maybe doing the first will produce useful knowledge for if we ever are ready to try the second.
To the extent this philosophy has merit, it’s in the societies that embrace it being virtually guaranteed to become poorer and thus, possibly, lower in population and energy and material intensity compared with their peers who keep technologically advancing.
"Tragedy of the commons" effect.
The words "woman" or "women" appear zero times on this thread up to my composing this post. The word "female" appears once in the context of how to breed a next generation without any women.
That's why none of this is going to work. Is that blunt enough for you? Have any of you asked a woman about the utter insanity of generation ships? Do you think maybe the tech industry still needs to do some work about gender equality, and the resulting quality of decision-making in tech management and investment?
That's why none of this is going to work. Is that blunt enough for you? Have any of you asked a woman about the utter insanity of generation ships? Do you think maybe the tech industry still needs to do some work about gender equality, and the resulting quality of decision-making in tech management and investment?
> Have any of you asked a woman about the utter insanity of generation ships?
Isn’t submitting the proposal to a jury that is 40% women explicitly asking women?
Isn’t submitting the proposal to a jury that is 40% women explicitly asking women?
It's not going to work because the energy requirements of reaching another habitable planet through interstellar space are mind-bogglingly high.
You need to be able to run a fusion reaction in space, for 100+ years and have absolutely nothing in the system break or require maintenance.
Until you do this, these spaceship competitions are just fancy CGI renders.
You need to be able to run a fusion reaction in space, for 100+ years and have absolutely nothing in the system break or require maintenance.
Until you do this, these spaceship competitions are just fancy CGI renders.
I think with highly enriched uranium you could definitely power a (set of spare) fishion reactors for that long during transit with reasonable mass budget.
Fission is the way to go for this for its general simplicity of design and it can self start by manually moving control rods. I never see anyone talking about they are going to restart a fusion reactor if it ever goes offline for any reason.
My thought is to use fission for powering the ship, and fusion for the drive. The fission reactors can start the fusion drive as needed and you can have multiple portable fission reactors like the NASA kilopower designs in an offline/inert state that could be powered on in an emergency.
My thought is to use fission for powering the ship, and fusion for the drive. The fission reactors can start the fusion drive as needed and you can have multiple portable fission reactors like the NASA kilopower designs in an offline/inert state that could be powered on in an emergency.
Teams would submit proposals for the design of a permanent space settlement (sometimes on the surface of a body, sometimes orbiting). Winners from across the world were invited to compete together live in 4 huge multi-national teams to design and pitch another settlement over a long sleepless weekend. As a two-time finalist, I can say it was an incredible experience for so many reasons.
This new competition seems like its goal is to actually take the design/ideation of working professionals as a serious output, as opposed to the educational value of simulating this sort of thing for students, which is what drove the ISSDC.