I see some skepticism about in regards to establishing anything outside of Earth.

Can i put to those people: The long stretch between the wheel and the engine, the engine and the aeroplane, and the aeroplane and the Moon landing.

It seems to me all we need is time to solve thsee problems (obviously, that ignores what happens within that time - but using hte above as a reference, surely we can be relatively confident humans, over time, will solve problems we are set to solve).

Can i put to those people: The long stretch between the wheel and the engine, the engine and the aeroplane, and the aeroplane and the Moon landing. — AmadeusD

Yeah, I'm one. The analogy doesn't hold, though. Mars is a possibility, as it is within some kind of striking distance. But even so, the problems involved in travelling there, let alone setting up habitable environments, are enormous.

But anything outside the solar system is another matter altogether. The times and distances involved are unthinkably huge. The nearest star system, Proxima Centauri, is 4.25 light years away and any kind of travel that covers those distances would take millions of years. That is 40 trillion kilometres, give or take. To give a sense of scale: even at 100,000 km/h (far faster than any crewed spacecraft has ever flown), the trip would take roughly 45 million years.

And even if propulsion and life-support challenges could somehow be overcome, human interstellar travel faces a fundamental biological barrier in the form of radiation exposure. Beyond Earth’s magnetosphere and the Sun’s heliosphere — crews would be continuously bombarded by high-energy galactic cosmic rays and episodic solar particle events. These particles penetrate most conventional shielding, generate secondary radiation within spacecraft materials, and accumulate irreversible damage to DNA, nervous tissue, and immune systems over time. Measured radiation doses on a Mars trajectory already approach the upper limits considered acceptable for astronaut careers; over interstellar timescales of decades or centuries the cumulative exposure would almost certainly exceed survivable thresholds. In this sense, radiation is not merely an engineering inconvenience but a hard biological constraint on human deep-space travel.

There was an ambitious idea to send ultra-light computer-powered systems to Proxima Centauri using laser-guided sails, Breakhrough Starshot. It sounds at least feasible, if not actually possible. But even that is effectively on hold.

Thanks mate - good stuff. I understand the points of resistance - but they would have been present prior to those other leaps forward, as I understand. People refused to believe the Wright brothers succeeded for a long time (relatively).

But even so, the problems involved in travelling there, let alone setting up habitable environments, are enormous. — Wayfarer

They appears to be shrinking. Which is my point. As time goes on, these sorts of things will crop up, and eventually viable methods will be to hand. Its speculative, but based on prior patterns of human invention/progress.

But anything outside the solar system is another matter altogether. — Wayfarer

Definitely. The timeline I imagine here is more like 1000 years. Not say, 150 as I tend toward that range for Mars or even visiting Pluto tbh.

However, there are, as I understand, some theoretically reasonable attempts at an equivalent of a warp drive/wormhole/gravity drive type of thing. Clearly, not open to engineering currently so its fair to reject the concept. But again, with the passage of time I see them becoming so, given their consistency with theory. To be clear again, this is speculative and I think we have reason for hope.

human interstellar travel faces a fundamental biological barrier in the form of radiation exposure — Wayfarer

As above, yes, currently. I am speculating into the far future and don't see a reason to assume we will never overcome these challenges - particularly as it'll be incremental. If we've figured out how to populate Mars, this may not seem so far fetched by lets say 2300. Ultimately, this is just for fun really.

In this sense, radiation is not merely an engineering inconvenience but a hard biological constraint on human deep-space travel. — Wayfarer

Sure, among the present available options. But we could certainly come upon a technique for deep-sleep which overcomes the radiation issue. Other things have to work for that to be anything but ridiculous. Granted. Speculative...

It sounds at least feasible — Wayfarer

I think that is all we will ever see in our lifetimes. Something feasible but out of reach.

warp drive/wormhole/gravity drive type of thin — AmadeusD

I respectifully think a lot of these ideas are science fiction. Which has, after all, seeped into the culture through nearly a century of cinematic memes. But if the Earth can't even get it together to agree to a treaty to prevent climate catastrophe, what are the odds of pulling together the kind of massive global effort required for planetary expansion. All the people spruking it - Bezos and Musk, mainly - are the top 1% of the top 1%, and they stand also to be the chief finacial beneficiaries of the whole endeavour, such as it is.

At risk of inviting vitriol, I don't think we're at risk of a catastrophe so its hard to use that analogy :P

But yeah, fair enough. These theoretics are so intensely out of reach that's a reasonable take.

I don't think we're at risk of a catastrophe — AmadeusD

Well, I admire your optimism. The Doomsday Clock was last set 28th Jan 2025, at 89 seconds before midnight.

Personally, taking that seriously is a bit of a orange flag.

C'est la vie :P

They're not cranks. It's published by the Union of Atomic Scientists.

Founded in 1945 by Albert Einstein, J. Robert Oppenheimer, and University of Chicago scientists who helped develop the first atomic weapons in the Manhattan Project, the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists created the Doomsday Clock two years later, using the imagery of apocalypse (midnight) and the contemporary idiom of nuclear explosion (countdown to zero) to convey threats to humanity and the planet. The Doomsday Clock is set every year by the Bulletin’s Science and Security Board in consultation with its Board of Sponsors, which includes nine Nobel laureates. The Clock has become a universally recognized indicator of the world’s vulnerability to global catastrophe caused by man-made technologies.

Last week, Putin fired a nuclear-capable missile into Ukraine.

Oh, no I'm aware they aren't cranks. They aren't required to be cranks for it to be bollocks.

If it ever gets to Zero, you can eat my hat :)

There'll be no hats. :yikes:

Anyway - my basic point is still, there's an awful lot of basic stuff that needs doing here on Earth, before 'fixing our gaze on distant worlds'.

Yep, definitely! :pray:

:100:

Btw, deep space travel is for machines -- the tinier the better -- Von Neumann self-replicating/nano-fabricators (e.g. Bracewell Probes), and not living organisms (re: hard radiation exposure is too lethal, transport size increases likelihood of hazardous particulate impacts, life-support limitations & extreme durations between destinations, etc which exponentially compound the costs/risks). — 180 Proof

@AmadeusD

we could certainly come upon a technique for deep-sleep which overcomes the radiation issue. — AmadeusD

No. Sleeping doesn't do anything to keep your chromosomes etc. from getting broken down by radiation.

I'm a Trump supporter and even I disagree with the Trump administration on this. I am not seeing the value of manned spaceflight at this time.

What’s it got to do with Trump?

*

Just to comment on the actual Artemis program, and NASAs manned space program in general:

The program came after the cancelled Constellation program (2005-2009), which planned the return to the Moon no later than 2020 with a planned budget of 230 million. Only one unmanned launch was made before the cancellation (of the program with 25 planned missions). Artemis picks up from that. Artemis program has less than half of the intended money of the Constellation program and has ten missions planned ten missions ending at 2035. The Artemis I was launched 5 years behind it's original schedule.

Artemis II is basically what Apollo 8 did while it will be Artemis III, planned next year, that mimicks the famous Apollo 11. Artemis III is planned to stay on the moon 6,5 hours and make two EVAs. Artemis III waits for the Space X Starship lander.

Artemis phase I (plans that obviously didn't make the timeline)


So let's just compare this with the Apollo program. The Apollo program planned for 20 mission in it's entirety with ten manned moon landings, but the last three were cancelled. Yet what is crucial is the program times: the Apollo program was intended to be from 1963 to 1972, only nine years. The Artemis program, with half of the missions that Apollo had is planned to end in 2035 and then will have been around for 18 years. Twice the time for half of the missions than over 50 years ago. And that is just that plan.

What’s it got to do with Trump? — Punshhh

Everything. I doubt that there is any scientific or technological priority of any sort that can be addressed by actually sending live people into orbit, space, the Moon, or Mars. It's 100% publicity stunt to prove to the ignoranti how great we are. Besides, the clock is ticking, possibly nearer to 15 seconds by now.

Looks to me like Trump reinstated an already existing programme because it was the opposite of what Obama did. Now in his second term he has become expansionist and will probably want to add the moon to his new list of colonies.

Trump reinstated an already existing programme because it was the opposite of what Obama did — Punshhh

Could well be. The Dems cut the program because it was expensive and pointless. The prestige value is still there if one is willing to foot the bill.