Construction of cathedrals often takes a long time - look at the Sagrada Família in Barcelona, started in 1883 and still being worked on (although it has been consecrated):
I second Arethuza, if you count construction projects there are some impressive long term projects. Some, such as Chichen Itza (400yrs) or Stonehenge (1,600yrs), have direct scientific significance as well.
The Basilica di Santa Maria del Fiore is a good example. One of the most fascinating things about this cathedral was that they had no idea how they were going to build the dome when they started building it (the construction techniques weren't advanced enough at the time). They had faith that someone in a later generation would figure it out. That person turned out to be Filippo Brunelleschi, one of the greatest engineers of that time.
... and that is exactly how funding would have to work -- tied to an ongoing organization's operations. Academia has their endowments and perma-fundraising. Religions have donations and tithing. This effort would need an analogous long term funding source.
My first thought is that if 1% of all renewable energy revenue was sent to this effort, it would provide potentially massive funding as renewable energy grows. I don't know how to convince the greedy energy folk to give up 1%, but it sure sounds nice.
This effort would need an analogous long term funding source.
No need to re-invent the wheel: turn the problem over to the religious.
The Roman Catholics has a long organizational history, millions of adherents, a large and functional bureaucracy, familiarity with generations-long projects.
Also, they speak Latin which will jazz things up.
I suppose Rome needs a reason _why_ to pursue this.
- Long-term people will be in space. They'll need ministry.
- If you're looking for the ultimate in isolation from wordly concerns for your religious, you can't beat the Oort Cloud.
Roman Catholics, outside of Gene Roddenberry's religion-free vision of the future, often seem to end up in space. In the Speaker for the Dead series, they were attempting to convert a whole other species. In Altered Carbon, they were still on spaceships trying to catch up to the distant stars since they weren't allowed to use subspace transmission (needlecasting) to transfer their consciousness (because of issues with their souls). In either scenario, you could make the case that they'd have a vested interest in being the first or best at creating interstellar space travel.
As great as it is in theory, even agreeing with thebooktocom that it'll likely not happen... It hurts a bit knowing we'll never settle another planet in my lifetime.
I was about to suggest the same approach. Immortality seems an easier problem to solve than building a starship, and travelling between stars becomes a lot easier if we're not bothered about bringing our organic bodies along.
Immortality is essentially a question of understanding a collection of cells well enough to transfer their state to a more robust medium. Performing experiments on cells is relatively cheap, and medical research is generally very well funded.
On the other hand, a viable starship would require a considerable amount of energy. We'd need to be comfortable travelling within our own solar system, because we're not going to get the amount of energy required from Earth. The best option so far is probably to park some 100km wide solar panels close to the Sun, store up energy for a year, and then use some rather large laser beams to convert that energy into a million ton blackhole. We'd then have a portable generator powerful enough to get us to another star.
So my guess is that we'll figure our immortality long before we can seriously think about building a starship.
Just because something is cheap and funded, doesn't mean it's easy. That's like saying, "Math departments get more funding than pottery classes, and paper and pencils are cheaper than clay, therefore math is obviously easier than making your mom an ashtray."
There are exceptions to the rule, but in general if performing experiments is cheap and easy, it's easier to solve a problem than if performing experiments is a million times more difficult and costly.
If civilian nuclear power gets replaced by other forms of power generation, we'd have a surplus of rocket fuel. If present sentiment continues, investing in nuclear-thermal propulsion could result in something interesting.
Maybe I should start lobbying against nuclear power ;-)
However, before we start, we should have some clear, economically viable, destinations. An NTR is worthless for launching stuff to orbit and that is 99.999% of what current rockets do. Where it shines is in Earth-Moon ferries and in planetary exploration.
I did a rough guesstimate, and in order to get a space ship the size of the Space Shuttle to Alpha Centauri in under 100 years and stop it, you need probably about 20x10^18 J of energy, assuming roughly 1% efficiency of mass to kinetic energy propulsion and with minimal effects due to relativity. I don't think this number is off by more than two orders of magnitude, but it's probably still much too conservative.
That's a lot of energy, about 10 times more than all nuclear explosions ever. Close to half your mass would be fuel at 1% efficiency.
I assume NASA is saying they want a launch in less than 100 years, not getting there in 100 years. Getting there in less than a 100 years is woefully unrealistic.
Anyway, we would gain so much just by having better propulsion capabilities, I am in, even if we don't launch an interstellar probe in 100 years. I'll be happy with a soccer-field-sized optical telescope in space.
Sadly the Space Core's ability to add (and maybe subtract) was removed at manufacturing. This would set him up for the fall as NASA's first non-human, albeit humanly insane administrator.
I would say spend the money on teleportation using entanglement. That would probably produce results faster then trying to move a large mass from one side of the universe to the other.
I guess we'll find out when we build one of each. Until then, it's like asking what's easier to build, a heavier-than-air flying vessel, or a magic carpet?
nasa is trying to stay relevant, but the truth is they themselves are turning to unmanned probes to explore our near neighborhood. indeed unmanned expeditions now appear to be their most fruitful
humans are not leaving this planet. we have co-evolved with the earth and we cannot survive without it. all of our manned excursions into space have taught us the same lesson over and over: man cannot survive in space. i find it amusing that people believe that humans can prosper on a planet circling another star yet we routinely see people dying just from the impact of traveling to another continent. humans can't even survive long term on this planet unless a temperature remains in a narrow band...how do you expect to pick some planet out in space based on spectral analysis and expect you would not die nearly-instantly upon arriving? we're fragile. we were not built for space travel, and we aren't going to evolve to prosper in space, earth itself will become inhospitable in the time that would take and humanity will likely vanish.
i often hear the refrain that man once thought that crossing the oceans was impossible too...but this has been beaten to death: scale matters. travelling to another star is not comparable to crossing the ocean, even modulo technology.
something from this planet might one day land on another planet, but it will be a robot.
just as it is a sign of maturity to accept one's own mortality, it is a sign of species maturity to recognize that we as a species will have a finite span
When I was a kid I was promised that in the 21st century we would have flying cars, hotels on Mars and space scouts exploring the galaxy back and forth. I am in the 21st century now and what do I get ... facebook? They've stolen my future. I want my future back. Cold war was fun.
You know, $500,000 is less than it costs a developer to buy a decent medium sized duplex house within reasonable commuting distance to a tech job in San Jose.
I don't really see $500k as an indication of any serious interest at all. It might as well be a grant for $37 plus whatever change, lint and gumdrops the proposal author happened to have in his pocket that day.
48 comments
[ 6.9 ms ] story [ 113 ms ] threadI think only a few religious/academic institutions have managed to have ambitious projects in the 100-year range.
I'd be genuinely interested to hear if you could name any.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sagrada_Fam%C3%ADlia
Cologne Cathedral: 1248-1880
My favorite example to bring up when my boss complains about schedule overrun :)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Florence_Cathedral
Great wall from 400BC - 1600AD
Angkor Wat 800AD - 1200AD
Chichen Itza 600AD - 1000AD
York Minster Cathedral 1220 - 1472AD
My first thought is that if 1% of all renewable energy revenue was sent to this effort, it would provide potentially massive funding as renewable energy grows. I don't know how to convince the greedy energy folk to give up 1%, but it sure sounds nice.
No need to re-invent the wheel: turn the problem over to the religious.
The Roman Catholics has a long organizational history, millions of adherents, a large and functional bureaucracy, familiarity with generations-long projects.
Also, they speak Latin which will jazz things up.
I suppose Rome needs a reason _why_ to pursue this.
- Long-term people will be in space. They'll need ministry.
- If you're looking for the ultimate in isolation from wordly concerns for your religious, you can't beat the Oort Cloud.
I've privately thought the Church needs to only aim a little lower: develop cheap access to space, then terraform Mars.
One billion and change, tithing a modest 1% of their income per year can put a lot of money in the kitty.
First invent (effective) immortality then travel to the stars.
Why do you think so?
On the other hand, a viable starship would require a considerable amount of energy. We'd need to be comfortable travelling within our own solar system, because we're not going to get the amount of energy required from Earth. The best option so far is probably to park some 100km wide solar panels close to the Sun, store up energy for a year, and then use some rather large laser beams to convert that energy into a million ton blackhole. We'd then have a portable generator powerful enough to get us to another star.
So my guess is that we'll figure our immortality long before we can seriously think about building a starship.
See "Kickstarter: Shorter project durations lead to higher funding rates": http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2684511
They'd be better off investing in nuclear propulsion R&D on a 5-10 year scale (Project Rover, phase IV):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Rover
Maybe I should start lobbying against nuclear power ;-)
However, before we start, we should have some clear, economically viable, destinations. An NTR is worthless for launching stuff to orbit and that is 99.999% of what current rockets do. Where it shines is in Earth-Moon ferries and in planetary exploration.
That's a lot of energy, about 10 times more than all nuclear explosions ever. Close to half your mass would be fuel at 1% efficiency.
Anyway, we would gain so much just by having better propulsion capabilities, I am in, even if we don't launch an interstellar probe in 100 years. I'll be happy with a soccer-field-sized optical telescope in space.
humans are not leaving this planet. we have co-evolved with the earth and we cannot survive without it. all of our manned excursions into space have taught us the same lesson over and over: man cannot survive in space. i find it amusing that people believe that humans can prosper on a planet circling another star yet we routinely see people dying just from the impact of traveling to another continent. humans can't even survive long term on this planet unless a temperature remains in a narrow band...how do you expect to pick some planet out in space based on spectral analysis and expect you would not die nearly-instantly upon arriving? we're fragile. we were not built for space travel, and we aren't going to evolve to prosper in space, earth itself will become inhospitable in the time that would take and humanity will likely vanish.
i often hear the refrain that man once thought that crossing the oceans was impossible too...but this has been beaten to death: scale matters. travelling to another star is not comparable to crossing the ocean, even modulo technology.
something from this planet might one day land on another planet, but it will be a robot.
just as it is a sign of maturity to accept one's own mortality, it is a sign of species maturity to recognize that we as a species will have a finite span
On your side of the curtain, maybe.
Sent from my iPhone
They're asking for ideas on optimal management and alternative funding for big long term projects. Spaceflight is just a widget example.
I don't really see $500k as an indication of any serious interest at all. It might as well be a grant for $37 plus whatever change, lint and gumdrops the proposal author happened to have in his pocket that day.