I love this sort of stuff. It makes me sit back and think beyond the boundaries of what's for dinner, and sparks the lingering imagination of that remaining child within...

Will our species make it into a barely imaginable future and fill the universe with life?

Or, will something step on us, and brush us off their shoe in disgust, tomorrow?

Will we succeed and expand? Or will our obvious weaknesses doom us to darkness, and a blurred patch of space in the museum of forgotten species....?

Its not likely I'll ever know. But while I'm here, I can imagine.

 

2 minutes ago, HiFlyer said:

Or, will something step on us, and brush us off their shoe in disgust, tomorrow?

 

Most likely scenario is we step on ourselves.

Hence, the Fermi Paradox. Self destruction, the great filter. Or one of them. There may be many great filters to negotiate.

1 hour ago, martin-w said:

 

Most likely scenario is we step on ourselves.

Hence, the Fermi Paradox. Self destruction, the great filter. Or one of them. There may be many great filters to negotiate.

A lot of these fictional "future scenarios" include us ALMOST stepping on ourselves but then somehow recovering from the brink.  Star Trek, with the "Eugenics Wars" and nuke war, and Blade Runner, with a damaged, dystopic Earth and offworld colonies.   Perhaps these are wishful thinking.   Similar to Logan's Run, it may be that cats are our successors.  Mrowr.

2 hours ago, martin-w said:

There may be many great filters to negotiate.

How about a genetic filter? Each time a population divides and expands in multiple directions throughout our galaxy, the gene pool in each one of the sub-populations will probably be reduced a little. By the time a sub-population reaches the other side of the galaxy, its gene pool may be so small that its viability may be threatened. So, it's not that our species would all die off. It's just that there would be a limit to just how far we can expand and still thrive.

I'm just guessing and have no expertise in the subject.

I think we are all gonna get gassy and explode! 🧨

7 hours ago, dmwalker said:

How about a genetic filter?

 

Maybe. But according to the biologists its the 50/500 rule. 50 people to combat inbreeding and 500 to combat genetic drift. So looks like you don't need a huge population. 

 

Other filters: War, pathogens, pandemics, asteroid impact, AI, climate change. 

5 hours ago, martin-w said:

 

Maybe. But according to the biologists its the 50/500 rule. 50 people to combat inbreeding and 500 to combat genetic drift. So looks like you don't need a huge population. 

 

Other filters: War, pathogens, pandemics, asteroid impact, AI, climate change. 

The risk from pretty much any of those could be alleviated if all of our eggs were not on/in this one fragile basket....

1 hour ago, HiFlyer said:

The risk from pretty much any of those could be alleviated if all of our eggs were not on/in this one fragile basket....

 

👍 Precisely.

 

 

Well, I hate to be a "Debby Downer", but all this is just pie in the sky.  If all goes well and we don't end up having a nuclear war, a very real prospect, it will be centuries before the human race can even contemplate colonizing other planets, and probably 100 years before we establish a base on the moon.  Star Trek Enterprise had it about right - WW3 the mid-late 2000s along with development of the first warp engine(for us it will be the first fusion-powered ion plasma engine), then real deep space exploration about a century later, and that's because we met the Vulcans who helped us out.  We won't have any help from a more advanced, benevolent alien civilization.

The technology and money just aren't there yet.  Simple chemical rocket engines aren't going to cut it for trips to the asteroid belt and beyond.  This will require powerful ion plasma type engines, which are still in their infancy.  Did I mention money, yet?  Oh yes, it will cost a tremendous amount of money to fund a trip to Mars, and an astronomical amount(no pun intended) to go beyond Mars.  We're talking hundreds of billions and even trillions.  Where's that going to come from?

I've always been a lover of science fiction, and have always been interested in science and technology, so I enjoy fantasizing about space travel.  However, I'm also a realist.  Look how much time, money, and effort it takes just to send a few people to the moon for a brief visit; and this is in 2023, 54 years after we first landed people there in 1969.

I am hopeful that I will live to see a manned mission to Mars, but I think that's about as far as we'll get in the next 50 years.

Dave

Edited April 13, 20233 yr by dave2013

20 minutes ago, dave2013 said:

 and probably 100 years before we establish a base on the moon

 

Huh... 😀 Where have you been? Thats the point of Artemis and SpaceX Starship. Unless theres a complete reversal of current plans, its happening, and more like 10 years than 100.

"With Artemis missions, NASA will land the first woman and first person of color on the Moon, using innovative technologies to explore more of the lunar surface than ever before. We will collaborate with commercial and international partners and establish the first long-term presence on the Moon. Then, we will use what we learn on and around the Moon to take the next giant leap: sending the first astronauts to Mars."

Edited April 13, 20233 yr by martin-w

25 minutes ago, dave2013 said:

Did I mention money, yet?  Oh yes, it will cost a tremendous amount of money to fund a trip to Mars, and an astronomical amount(no pun intended) to go beyond Mars.  We're talking hundreds of billions and even trillions.  Where's that going to come from?

 

Private companies. The more scarce resources become here, the more viable mining the asteroids becomes. And launching from the Moon or Mars with their low gravity will make it even more viable.

 

 

Edited April 13, 20233 yr by martin-w

"When aggregating all relevant costs across mission directorates, NASA is projected to spend $93 billion on the Artemis effort up to FY 2025. We also project the current production and operations cost of a single SLS/Orion system at $4.1 billion per launch for Artemis I through IV, although the Agency’s ongoing initiatives aimed at increasing affordability seek to reduce that cost."

https://oig.nasa.gov/docs/IG-22-003.pdf

1 hour ago, martin-w said:

The more scarce resources become here, the more viable mining the asteroids becomes. And launching from the Moon or Mars with their low gravity will make it even more viable

Is there some sort of timeline from first colony on Mars to first metal extracted from the asteroid belt?

36 minutes ago, dmwalker said:

Is there some sort of timeline from first colony on Mars to first metal extracted from the asteroid belt?

Who knows? But we do already have some idea that there are almost unimaginable resources available out there... if we can get to them.

 

43 minutes ago, HiFlyer said:

Who knows? But we do already have some idea that there are almost unimaginable resources available out there... if we can get to them.

It's just that I can't see many investors pouring billions of dollars into a project that may not start to pay back for 50 years or more.