Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

KeaboUltra t1_j9m9d8f wrote

Reply to comment by PandaEven3982 in what's the future of space travel within the next 27 years in 2050 to 2100 by LatterCardiologist47

I don't think you know what I meant in my response to you saying "we won't be able to get off this planet in any significant way, until humanity develops a social structure different and a bit more politically advanced." Us being fucked is possible, I'm not ruling that out, but Humanity doesn't decide anything. I don't think we would even begin to be able to do that until we become a type 1 civilization, until then, we're bound by Human/Nature. We grow around whatever life changing discoveries or revolutions we make, base off how humanity is hardwired to adapt. There are obviously things that could prevent growth, but I just believe that it won't happen until it randomly happens, we're in a perpetual state of being fucked and based on where we are, technologically, until your proposed mindset happens. We don't have to do anything spectacular outside of our capabilities, except refine and prove the things we have until we eventually hit a turning point, things like the world wars, the space race, or the internet and now, interest in AI and AR/VR.

Humanity wont be able to congregate and decide as a whole. We develop around whatever gets dropped onto us. A choice will be made and people will live on the moon, or start some sort of colony in space in a near earth orbit, whether that choice is made in effort to keep the advantage over geopolitical enemies and influence their will, or for the sake and benefit of humanity, science and our curiosity. This, especially if Artemis 2 and 3 are successful. The amount of difference that makes is enormous. in 27 years, that base could become a manufacturing facility with a bigger crew, and new technologies to develop in that time, just as the internet practically changed how the world communicated in 15-30 years and the explosion of smart phones, homes, and other devices. travel could be made easier with residential space station hotels, as you mention, then a technology is developed to launch smaller crafts for trips around the earth, maybe for faster long range shipping, or a "trip" you could take, and more important trips to the moon for research without having to launch heavy rockets on earth. Money could be made with that commercially.

As the technology gets more efficient, it gets easier to send things to and from a moon base. Maybe using solar sails or utilizing fuel more efficiently due to lower to no gravity. in time their technologies and communities grow. We may not be space travelling actively but this scenario is possible, but depending on if technologies like chatGPT and robotics develop to be more reliable and accurate, it's possible in 27-30 years to have stuff like this completely automated, if not more than we expect. It would force humanity to think differently, it really just depends on what scalable discoveries we make, because as we start implementing them, the world will change bit by bit, as laws are made and the technologies made commercially in these advancements inevitably puts us in that mindset.. The world thinks radically different already than it did 50-70 years ago, even if a lot of people still live in the past.. The world in general is different, society itself would probably break down or at least grind to a halt if access to the internet just disappeared in todays world, especially as younger people who deal with automated things likely wont have manual knowledge, or how company identities and worldwide services fully exist on the internet. Imagine how short a change could take when now the world is connected by the internet? Stuff like that can happen any moment.

I understand what you see, and why you think that way, I'm simply expressing a differing perspective.

2

PandaEven3982 t1_j9uuzn9 wrote

I invite you to look at what this discussion devolved into, and factor in pollution, global warming, decling biodiversity, etc. It's not like we have a lot of time. At this rate, the more interesting question is who drowns or bakes first. We're generating enough heat to actually delay what should be an encroaching ice age, according to the science we think we know.

I think you're an optimist. Shrugs.

1

KeaboUltra t1_j9zmto2 wrote

Again, to repeat what I said simply. Humanity will not decide to be ready for space colonization. Nothing I'm saying to you is in opposition except to say that we will never collectively decide to change society, society will change around what we do, don't do, or achieve, therefore there's equal potential of everything. instead of trying to label me things you could just accept it as an opinion, there's no need to get agitated. I'm not arguing with you over whether or not we will overcome anything we're dealing with, optimism has nothing to do with it. I'm saying we wont be in that mindset unless the wheels of general progress hit the ground rolling, which they're already doing.

Also, you're looking at the world in black and white if you think the question boils down to who bakes or drowns first. Climate change isn't about that, It's about a changing climate that threatens how we've become accustomed to the water and environments around us that we base our society on, and the animals/humans that will suffer for it. humanity can manage the changing climate and heat, but the strife this will bring is the danger. nevertheless, that doesn't stifle human progress until a nuke, asteroid, or EMP is dropped on our heads, until that happens, an impeding moon base or a breakthrough in technology is all that's keeping us from utilizing extraterrestrial space and what with this seemingly renewed space race and activity, we could be in the beginnings of that change. Humanity doesn't need to collectively change and do better no more than the early settlers and colonizers didn't need to work together to travel the sea or explore otherwise uncharted territory.

1

PandaEven3982 t1_j9zobzu wrote

I'm s firm believer in Murphy, since engineering was my thing. We now control enough energy to affect climate the slow way. We also control enough energy to really" affect the environment a lot more significantly and faster. We are an armed, aggressive, warlike species. Shrugs. I've been thinking about EMP and fobs and l5 since the early 70s. I'll lay any money someone has tungsten rods in orbit right now.

No humanity won't decide. Not educated enough, kept artificially divided, kept artificially poor. Nope. Not without significant and probably violent change. So as to the very original question....

Edit: Not gonna be a lot of space travel except military, science and industrial concerns.

1

KeaboUltra t1_j9zut7d wrote

>Not without significant and probably violent change. So as to the very original question....

That's the point of what I'm saying. Significant, and or violent changes happen through progress, it doesn't matter if the progress is positive or negative, unless the negative is completely catastrophic to the entire planet at a point were life can no longer be possible. Violence doesn't necessarily mean technological regression as seen with the atomic bomb. These changes don't have to originate from society to affect society. Society is forced to accept whatever we're given. If man successfully lands on the moon and a base is made. that's already significant enough. There are already missions surrounding it, if we get people on the moon by 2030, then OPs question becomes what does space travel look like in 20 years after an established moon base. If we were doing nothing at all with space as a species, then I'd have your POV, but the internet, GPS, JWST, space probes, star link, rovers and much others all show that the interest is there and it's a matter of when this happens, and who makes it there first. As things fall into place, peacefully or violently, humanity will adapt to a society that utilizes space travel, even if it's only between the moon and earth for the next 30-50 years. That in itself is significant enough because our affairs will not only affect earth, and a proper moon base would serve to supplement earth with resources, energy, a celestial community, assisted research and more. Having a successful Artemis 3 mission before 2030, and other countries pushing to reach the moon first makes this even more tangible, because it all starts with progress.

1

PandaEven3982 t1_ja12gzb wrote

Why do ya think I brought it up?? We handle amounts of energy now that can catastrophically affect this planet. We have an aggressive society, lots of unhappy unhealthy people and enough bombs to literally crack the planet. Je suis fin. Bon soir.

1

KeaboUltra t1_ja1hcw4 wrote

And what does any of that have to do with being unable to achieve a future of space travel in any meaningful way? What does meaningful mean to you vs humanity? You talked about how we cant get big projects off the ground due to no funding yet we've already managed to complete step 1 of 3 on the artemis mission after shooting JWST into orbit among other space related missions. those are pretty significant. in a time frame of 27 years, I don't think anyone's expecting to be on Mars or Venus levels of significant, let alone travelling out of the solar system unless it was just a probe but the beginnings of a moon base are significant none the less.

Back when you said:

>ATM, I see nothing more than small stuff in the inner planets. Mostly military buildup over Terra and lots of science. Maybe a billionaire hotel somewhere pretty

and

>Not gonna be a lot of space travel except military, science and industrial concerns.

Is exactly what I'm talking about. A research facility on the moon or even military activity is significant. None of that is small. And when these things start, it will be what allows us to travel further into space as it becomes the norm throughout society from 2050 and beyond. Anything more than what we currently have on the moon is significant, but the perspective I'm adding is that this is what will be what pushes humanity in a direction to have the mindset you claim we wouldn't get unless we worked together, the more we ingrain local space faring, the more our society advances in that direction, not because we'll be more mature, but because of what it has to offer to humanity.

1

PandaEven3982 t1_ja2y91i wrote

You aren't actually reading what I've said to you, or you keep missing the points. I am disengaging. If you think blowing up the planet isn't capable of ruining post scarcity, I don't think we need further discussion. You don't seem to have a problem with risky stuff. I do.

1

KeaboUltra t1_ja37e24 wrote

Nor are you because not once have I said or thought blowing up the planet wasn't capable of that. You're hyper focused on destruction, saying that none of our current projects are meaningful and all I'm literally telling you is that humanity is already making steps towards making significant strides onto being a space faring species no matter how much capacity we have for destruction and irrelevant to what you deem significant. Humanity has plenty of potential until we blow up, just as we have plenty potential to advance. Has it happened yet? It makes zero sense to be completely on either side when we would likely achieve significant progress (that is to say ANY space colony, inner planet or just between earth and the moon) whether humanity peacefully or violently reaches that reality. It random chance, with supporting facts and evidence that drives people to believe what we're capable of in the near future but it's like you want the world to blow up, why? Because only you know what the future holds? You, someone who seriously thinks climate change will really be about who bakes or drowns? How can I care to read the full extent of your post when the majority of your points is under researched hyped up doomerism? You brought up an interesting perspective initially and all I wanted was to provide differing perspectives surrounding a similar position yet you all have the same panicky, anxiety induced hopeless responses about the world as if human depravity and destruction is new, yet here we are talking wirelessly on a web forum, waiting to see which country establishes a moon base first.

0