Hope of exploring the universe

[finster]

I've been thinking about the unmanned support ships and have gone back and forth between 'what a good idea' and 'not necessary'. I think I've settled on 'not necessary'.

 

Why not just bring the support ships with you? Energy requirements shouldn't change significantly, and it leaves you the option to change your plans later if during that 19,000 years something unexpected happens. Should also help with your disaster recovery planning.

 

Let's compromise. Since the key to successful space exploration is redundancy, why not do both?

 

 

 

 

This seems somewhat plausible but where would they build it? How would they keep the plants from dying out after draining the soil of nutrients, or some other method?

 

 

 

Hydrophonic farming. You only need water.

 

Also, you forget, our space travelers will pooping the whole trip. That's fertilizer.

 

 

 

[zapatos]

Let's compromise. Since the key to successful space exploration is redundancy, why not do both?

But what benefit would you gain by sending them ahead? It seems to me that having the supplies close by gives you options that you do not have if the supplies are sent ahead. For example, changing destinations, having ready access in an emergency, using the supply craft for a lifeboat, etc.

[finster]

But what benefit would you gain by sending them ahead? It seems to me that having the supplies close by gives you options that you do not have if the supplies are sent ahead. For example, changing destinations, having ready access in an emergency, using the supply craft for a lifeboat, etc.

 

Well, for one, how are you going to assemble 19,000 years worth of fuel and supplies to be ready to leave all at once? The truth is, the journey is so vast you would need fuel and supplies ahead of you, with you, and following up behind you on a delivery and rendezvous time scale spanning decades, even centuries long. You ain't bringing everything with you at once. You're going to need a trail so later ships can travel in your wake. It's going to be like one long space road, with pits stops all along the way.

Edited April 23, 2012 by finster

[questionposter]

Well, for one, how are you going to assemble 19,000 years worth of fuel and supplies to be ready to leave all at once? The truth is, the journey is so vast you would need fuel and supplies ahead of you, with you, and following up behind you on a delivery and rendezvous time scale spanning decades, even centuries long. You ain't bringing everything with you at once. You're going to need a trail so later ships can travel in your wake. It's going to be like one long space road, with pits stops all along the way.

 

It's possible there might be more than one biosphere, and all the uranium in the world could destroy Earth at least a few times over, so self sustaining nuclear-reactor based bio-spheres might work.

Edited April 23, 2012 by questionposter

[finster]

 

It's possible there might be more than one biosphere, and all the uranium in the world could destroy Earth at least a few times over, so self sustaining nuclear-reactor based bio-spheres might work.

 

There certainly should be more than one biosphere. The more there are, the more it increase the odds for the survival of humanity.

 

 

 

Edited April 23, 2012 by finster

[zapatos]

Well, for one, how are you going to assemble 19,000 years worth of fuel and supplies to be ready to leave all at once? The truth is, the journey is so vast you would need fuel and supplies ahead of you, with you, and following up behind you on a delivery and rendezvous time scale spanning decades, even centuries long. You ain't bringing everything with you at once. You're going to need a trail so later ships can travel in your wake. It's going to be like one long space road, with pits stops all along the way.

I can see you might want to send some supplies afterward to allow you to begin the journey sooner. You still haven't said though why you need to send them ahead of you.

[finster]

I can see you might want to send some supplies afterward to allow you to begin the journey sooner. You still haven't said though why you need to send them ahead of you.

 

 

For one it saves fuel. If unmanned supply ships leave 10, 20, 30, 40, 50-100 years before you they won't have to use fuel to keep pace with the main fleet. They will already be off headed in the direction of the nearest star drifting by inertia. Plus you have 19,000 years for life support systems to fail, to breakdown, to degrade, to run out. It's not that I am merely suggesting you send supply ship ahead of you, it's that you have to. You'd never be able to compile enough supplies at once without starving the existing population on earth to destruction. You can't just take all those resources at once. You're talking 19,000 years of resource production. You'll have to send out supply ships hundreds, possibly even thousands of years in advance because, once you leave, you're not going to double back for the supply ships behind you and they are not going to catch up to you unless you're abandoning the quest. The supply ships behind you would be for the bioships behind them.

 

 

Sending supply ships out years and years ahead of the actual manned missions has to be looked at as an investment in the future survival of humanity. We have to start sending them out now, let them accumulate, and forget about them until we're ready to go ourselves.

 

The point is, since you can't leave with all the resources for the entire trip at once, you have to have resources ahead of you.

Edited April 23, 2012 by finster

[zapatos]

For one it saves fuel. If unmanned supply ships leave 10, 20, 30, 40, 50-100 years before you they won't have to use fuel to keep pace with the main fleet. They will already be off headed in the direction of the nearest star drifting by inertia.

It will take exactly the same amount of fuel to move a supply ship from point A to point B whether the ship leaves today, tomorrow, or 1000 years from now. There will be no fuel savings.

 

Plus you have 19,000 years for life support systems to fail, to breakdown, to degrade, to run out.

If I put together supplies and launch them ahead of time for use in 10,000 years, or if I put supplies together and hold in a staging area for a later launch, still to be used in 10,000 years, there will be no difference in failures, breakdowns, etc.

 

It's not that I am merely suggesting you send supply ship ahead of you, it's that you have to. You'd never be able to compile enough supplies at once without starving the existing population on earth to destruction. You can't just take all those resources at once. You're talking 19,000 years of resource production. You'll have to send out supply ships hundreds, possibly even thousands of years in advance because, once you leave, you're not going to double back for the supply ships behind you and they are not going to catch up to you unless you're abandoning the quest. The supply ships behind you would be for the bioships behind them.

Let's say it takes 1000 years to get those supplies together. There is no difference between sending out a supply ship every hundred years with one 1/10 of the supplies and then sending the people after the 1000 years, or saving up the supplies for 1000 years and sending them all together. The rate you put the supplies together is exactly the same, so no change in impact to the population.

 

Sending supply ships out years and years ahead of the actual manned missions has to be looked at as an investment in the future survival of humanity. We have to start sending them out now, let them accumulate, and forget about them until we're ready to go ourselves.

Or, just gather the supplies for years and years ahead of the actual manned mission, but send them out at the same time the people leave.

 

You do not have to change anything about the production, fuel, or anything else, to launch them at the same time you launch the people.

 

Unless there is some other factor not yet mentioned, I see no added benefit to sending out the supplies prior to sending out the people.

[finster]

It will take exactly the same amount of fuel to move a supply ship from point A to point B whether the ship leaves today, tomorrow, or 1000 years from now. There will be no fuel savings.

 

 

The unmanned supply ships will not be moving at the same speed as the manned ships, therefore there will be a difference between fuel consumption of unmanned ships sent out ahead and unmanned ships that have to keep pace with the populated ships. The reason you want the populated ships to move faster is twofold and obvious...Also, it is doubtful you could stockpile such a vast amount of resources on or near Earth without socio-economic grumblings from its inhabitants eventually causing them to lay claim to them for more immediate needs. If you launch the supplies into space, it's a real commitment.

 

Also, you must consider you will be taking vast supplies with you for the journey. But those supplies will be more likely to be consumed on the journey between stars because you will be separated from the stars, the source of all energy. If the journey gets sidetracked or takes longer than expected or consumes resources faster than expected while at a dangerous mid-point between stars, you are going to be looking forward to those extra supplies waiting for you at certain points. If you put all your eggs in one basket and miscalculate or get slowed in your progress or multiple life support systems fail without any pre-positioned supply points to rescue you, you're dead before you even get there. It's like swimming from America to Japan. You may make it, you may not, but it sure would make you feel better if there were islands along the way.

Edited April 23, 2012 by finster

[zapatos]

The unmanned supply ships will not be moving at the same speed as the manned ships, therefore there will be a difference between fuel consumption of unmanned ships sent out ahead and unmanned ships that have to keep pace with the populated ships.

No, the fuel consumption will be the same.

 

Let's say we send out the supply vessel now at 0.1c. It will take x amount of fuel to get it to that velocity.

Later on we send out the people at 0.2c. For simplicity let's say it takes an amount of fuel equal to 2x.

When the people overcome the supply ship, in order to get the supplies, they need the supply ship to be going the same speed as the people. So they speed up the supply ship to 0.2c from 0.1c, using an amount of fuel equal to x. That is 2x in fuel the supply ship has now used.

They could have used that exact same 2x in fuel to leave at the same time the people did, and cruised along at the same velocity.

Therefore there is no difference in fuel consumption.

 

The reason you want the populated ships to move faster is twofold and obvious...

 

Well, you only mentioned one (the fuel). What is the other?

 

Also, it is doubtful you could stockpile such a vast amount of resources on or near Earth without socio-economic grumblings from its inhabitants eventually causing them to lay claim to them for more immediate needs. If you launch the supplies into space, it's a real commitment.

 

But you said "Sending supply ships out years and years ahead of the actual manned missions has to be looked at as an investment in the future survival of humanity." You can't argue that both sides of the socio-economics issue support your argument. Also, why is it 'doubtful' that we can store it without grumblings, but ok with the population if we send it? Is the socio-economic issue what you had in mind all along when you said we should send out supply ships ahead of time? Just wondering because this is the first time you brought it up.

 

Also, you must consider you will be taking vast supplies with you for the journey. But those supplies will be more likely to be consumed on the journey between stars because you will be separated from the stars, the source of all energy. If the journey gets sidetracked or takes longer than expected or consumes resources faster than expected while at a dangerous mid-point between stars, you are going to be looking forward to those extra supplies waiting for you at certain points.

Actually this is an argument in favor of taking all of the supplies with you instead of sending them out ahead of time.

 

You have the same amount of supplies either way, and will consume the same amount either way.

 

If the journey gets sidetracked or takes longer than expected or consumes resources faster than expected while at a dangerous mid-point between stars, you are going to be glad you have the extra supplies with you, rather than hoping that you don't starve to death before you reach the extra supplies that are at the pre-positioned supply points.

 

If you put all your eggs in one basket and miscalculate or get slowed in your progress without any pre-positioned supply points to rescue you, you're dead before you even get there.

Exactly the opposite is true.

 

If the food is with you then you can eat it and arrive alive.

 

If the food is not with you and you mis-calculated, that is when you're dead before you even get there.

 

And to quote a very wise person:

 

I really hope this place isn't competitive to the point that people just pan other people's ideas just because they are not their own. That would be really sad.

Edited April 23, 2012 by zapatos

[finster]

 

Exactly the opposite is true.

 

If the food is with you then you can eat it and arrive alive.

 

 

 

With all due respect to someone who arrived at the same idea independently, I think you may be missing the point.

 

There WILL be supplies with you. As much as you can possibly take with you. The point of the pre-positioned way-station supplies is a redundancy. Redundancies are crucial in space exploration when you are dealing with people's lives. A star is a serious source of life and you don't cut ties with one for 19,000 years lightly. Think of it this way: would you rather have stars within close proximity for the duration of the trip or just empty space? The pre-positioned supplies are like little stars, supplying energy. The whole reason the journey is dangerous and why you have to bring supplies is because we will be out of range of stars. If there is a trail of supplies throughout the journey, it's like having a safety net of stars the whole way. Another way of looking at it is this: you could run out of supplies along the way with either plan. Given that you already will be leaving stocked with massive supplies calculated to support the whole trip, if by some fluke those supplies run out or become compromised and you can't reach the next pre-positioned way-station in time, at least those way-stations would give you a fighting chance, at least they would be there. With your plan, if you run out of supplies, that's it. End of game.

 

Even the first men to reach the south pole knew enough to lay down supply stations behind them for the return trip. They did both. Took supplies with them and left positioned some for later. Squirrels do it too to get themselves through winter.

 

Just to add one more thing: Not only would it be advisable to send supplies out ahead. I would advocate pre-positioning whole unmanned mother biosphere ships out there. Hardware like ships, support craft, computers, bunk beds, tooth brushes, everything we need to survive on earth are also prone to breaking down or wearing out in space over a 19,000 year journey and should be sent out ahead of us. Wouldn't that be a relief to be able to step onto an unused mother ship at a mid-point along the journey between stars?

[zapatos]

With all due respect to someone who arrived at the same idea independently, I think you may be missing the point.

 

There WILL be supplies with you. As much as you can possibly take with you. The point of the pre-positioned way-station supplies is a redundancy. Redundancies are crucial in space exploration when you are dealing with people's lives.

 

With all due respect in return, I think you are missing my point.

 

I am suggesting that anything you may have pre-positioned, you instead take with you. Any redundancy is with you instead of somewhere ahead of you. There is no limit to how much I can take with me. Anything you would have sent out early, I would send out at the same time the people left. Any supply that you can get to in 100 years, 200 years, or 1000 years, I can lay my hands on today.

 

Even the first men to reach the south pole knew enough to lay down supply stations behind them for the return trip. They did both. Took supplies with them and left positioned some for later. Squirrels do it too to get themselves through winter.

They left them behind because they could not possibly take the supplies with them. They had a limited carrying capacity. You don't have that same limit in space.

 

How many explorers died because they couldn't get back to their pre-positioned supplies in time? If the supplies had been with them they would have survived.

[finster]

Btw, this is not a competition for me. I'm not fighting your idea. Of course, you bring enough supplies with you for the whole journey. Maybe you bring enough supplies for TRIPLE the journey. What I am fighting for is the principle of redundancy in space exploration. You try to minimize the risks as much as possible. A lot can go wrong over a 19,000 year journey. Supplies can be mismanaged, angry rogue captains could attempt to undermine the whole mission, etc. We don't know. 19,000 years is a long time.

[zapatos]

Btw, this is not a competition for me. I'm not fighting your idea. Of course, you bring enough supplies with you for the whole journey. Maybe you bring enough supplies for TRIPLE the journey. What I am fighting for is the principle of redundancy in space exploration. You try to minimize the risks as much as possible. A lot can go wrong over a 19,000 year journey. Supplies can be mismanaged, angry rogue captains could attempt to undermine the whole mission, etc. We don't know. 19,000 years is a long time.

In what way do you think I am arguing against your idea of redundancy?

[finster]

With all due respect in return, I think you are missing my point.

 

I am suggesting that anything you may have pre-positioned, you instead take with you. Any redundancy is with you instead of somewhere ahead of you. There is no limit to how much I can take with me. Anything you would have sent out early, I would send out at the same time the people left. Any supply that you can get to in 100 years, 200 years, or 1000 years, I can lay my hands on today.

 

 

They left them behind because they could not possibly take the supplies with them. They had a limited carrying capacity. You don't have that same limit in space.

 

How many explorers died because they couldn't get back to their pre-positioned supplies in time? If the supplies had been with them they would have survived.

 

Firstly, I will kindly point out that by postulating a fear of running out of supplies, you are unconsciously conceeding my point.

 

Even when I've agreed you will have enough supplies on hand with you (maybe even triple the supplies needed) to make the entire journey without way-stations, you still insist, by postulating a fear of running out of supplies, as a reason to not set up way-station points. Again, way-station points are a REDUNDANCY, an insurance policy. If you asked the people going on this journey whether they'ed want BOTH enough supplies with them to make the entire journey PLUS the addition of way-stations, if they already know they will have enough supplies with them to make the journey, they are going to agree to the way-stations as an added REDUNDACY, an added assurance.

 

If you asked the Apollo astronauts at the time if they would want to have an extra return launch vehicle set up on the moon ahead of their trip just in case the one they brought with them failed on the moon, do you think they would say no to that? if I were them I would have felt a lot more confident about the trip.

Edited April 23, 2012 by finster

[zapatos]

Firstly, I will kindly point out that by postulating a fear of running out of supplies, you are unconsciously conceeding my point.

 

Even when I've agreed you will have enough supplies on hand with you (maybe even triple the supplies needed) to make the entire journey without way-stations, you still insist, by postulating a fear of running out of supplies, as a reason to not set up way-station points. Again, way-station points are a REDUNDANCY, an insurance policy. If you asked the people going on this journey whether they'ed want BOTH enough supplies with them to make the entire journey PLUS the addition of way-stations, if they already know they will have enough supplies with them to make the journey, they are going to agree to the way-stations as an added REDUNDACY, an added assurance.

 

If you asked the Apollo astronauts at the time if they wokld want to have an extra return launch vehicle set up on the moon ahead of their trip just in case the one they brought with them failed on the moon, do you think they would say no to that?

So do you think your way would be better because ultimately, you would have even more supplies available to you than I would?

[finster]

In what way do you think I am arguing against your idea of redundancy?

 

Because I'm saying we employ multiple backup contingency plans and you are insisting on one.

 

 

 

 

So do you think your way would be better because ultimately, you would have even more supplies available to you than I would?

 

No. You're not fighting redundancy of supplies. You're fighting redundancy of options. The only thing wrong with your plan is the resistance to multiple alternate options. Why put all your eggs in one basket if you have enough eggs to put them in two?

Edited April 23, 2012 by finster

[zapatos]

Because I'm saying we employ multiple backup contingency plans and you are insisting on one.

 

No. The only thing wrong with your plan is the resistance to multiple alternate options. Why put all your eggs in one basket if you have enough eggs to put them in two?

No, you are still misunderstanding me.

 

I want exactly the same number of backup contingency plans that you want.

I want multiple alternate options just like you.

I want two baskets, just like you.

 

The only difference in our plans is the distance between the people and the baskets. I want the baskets to be close by. You want the baskets to be far away.

If it turns out due to some unforseen circumstance that I need something in one of the baskets, I can get to it quickly.

If it turns out due to some unforseen circumstance that you need something in one of the baskets, you are going to have to wait 100 years for it.

[finster]

I've got a perfect illustration of this to hammer home my point: I'm sure you recall Apollo 13? They too took all the supplies they needed with them to get to the moon. But something went wrong with their spacecraft and not only did they have to abandon to moon shot but were shitting bricks for the whole return trip. Now if Nasa had pre-positioned emergency duplicate spacecraft between here and the moon, they might have been able the finish the moonshot. Instead, they had to come home and almost lost their lives.

 

Is that what you want, Zapatos? Another Apollo 13?

[Moontanman]

Boys boys boys, sadly you are all wrong... Just kidding but i would like to point out a couple things on this.

 

First why do you think sending supplies out ahead will help anyone? If the mother ship is traveling faster than the supply ships then you have that nasty delta vee to worry about. No matter if the supply ships could accelerate to catch up to the speed of the mothership, if they could so that they will take exactly, more or less, the same amount of energy launch as simply storing the supplies in the mother ship. Why not let them go along side the mother ship if they don't fit inside?

 

Another thing, if you are going to be gone 19,000 years you need a enclosed ecosystem, whether you created a near natural biosphere, or a completely artificial one involving genetically engineered organisms to compact the system. You would want a self contained ecosystem nothing else will do. so why not just take extra water located in mega gallon tanks (very useful as heat sinks) along the rim of the torus. extra CO2, extra CH4 and let the chemistry of life do the dirty work?

 

When you get to the other solar system you can "refuel" at any ice moon.

 

I realized I had not mentioned the added mass to accelerate, the hulls of the supply ships, storing the needed chemicals inside the mothership would take less energy to launch them.

Edited April 23, 2012 by Moontanman

[zapatos]

I've got a perfect illustration of this to hammer home my point: I'm sure you recall Apollo 13? They too took all the supplies they needed with them to get to the moon. But something went wrong with their spacecraft and not only did they have to abandon to moon shot but were shitting bricks for the whole return trip. Now if Nasa had pre-positioned emergency duplicate spacecraft between here and the moon, they might have been able the finish the moonshot. Instead, they had to come home and almost lost their lives.

 

Is that what you want, Zapatos? Another Apollo 13?

I swear I think you are not reading what I am writing.

 

What would be better, to have an emergency duplicate spacecraft positioned 100,000 miles away, or to have an emergency duplicate spacecraft positioned 1 mile away?

[finster]

No, you are still misunderstanding me.

 

I want exactly the same number of backup contingency plans that you want.

I want multiple alternate options just like you.

I want two baskets, just like you.

 

The only difference in our plans is the distance between the people and the baskets. I want the baskets to be close by. You want the baskets to be far away.

If it turns out due to some unforseen circumstance that I need something in one of the baskets, I can get to it quickly.

If it turns out due to some unforseen circumstance that you need something in one of the baskets, you are going to have to wait 100 years for it.

 

My counterpoint to that is and has always been, if the supplies you have with you are still not enough, all you have are the supplies with you. My option is the supplies you have with you PLUS supplies you pick up on the way. In addition, you'd only have to wait 100 years if we spaced out the supply depots by 100 years. We could choose to space them out sooner. The point is, the supply chain is set up and ready BEFORE you venture out, which would give our star wanders a tremendous boost of confidence.

 

I think we're grappling with an ad infinitum argument. I keep advising a supply chain and you keep grabbing the supplies for yourself even after I've said you'll be given enough supplies to make 3 round trips. You're being greedy. The fact that you keep on insisting you have all the supplies with you, tells me you're not confident. The purpose of the supply chain is to provide confidence.

 

And in addition, the fact that a supply chain trail has been pre-established all the way to the nearest star is a virtual guarantee you will make it. They are like stepping stones across a river. If they are going all the way to the next star, if you follow them, you probably will too.

 

I swear I think you are not reading what I am writing.

 

What would be better, to have an emergency duplicate spacecraft positioned 100,000 miles away, or to have an emergency duplicate spacecraft positioned 1 mile away?

 

Zapatos, I'm not saying you won't have that. You will. You will have all the emergency spacecraft you want 1 mile away, if that's what you like. But to be truly confident, those space craft have to make it out there with you. How much more confidence will you have if, in addition to the emergency craft you are taking with you, there are craft already positioned and in place ahead of you BEFORE you even set out on your journey?

 

 

 

 

Boys boys boys, sadly you are all wrong... Just kidding but i would like to point out a couple things on this.

 

First why do you think sending supplies out ahead will help anyone? If the mother ship is traveling faster than the supply ships then you have that nasty delta vee to worry about. No matter if the supply ships could accelerate to catch up to the speed of the mothership, if they could so that they will take exactly, more or less, the same amount of energy launch as simply storing the supplies in the mother ship. Why not let them go along side the mother ship if they don't fit inside?

 

Got that figured out. Mother ships won't have to stop or adjust. As they close in on supply depots and unmanned mother and support ships, they send ahead smaller freight ships to collect supplies and drop off crew to populate the new ships. Easy peasy.

 

Plus, again, you don't want the ships altogether. You want a line. Not all the ships have to keep up with one another. They will all have supplies with them to make it on their own. And conversely, the longer the space caravan, the more connected fleets will be to one another.

Edited April 23, 2012 by finster

[zapatos]

My counterpoint to that is and has always been, if the supplies you have with you are still not enough, all you have are the supplies with you. My option is the supplies you have with you PLUS supplies you pick up on the way.

No, that hasn't always been your point.

 

So do you think your way would be better because ultimately, you would have even more supplies available to you than I would?

No.

They are your contingencies, they are your backups, they are your redundancies, they are your supplies.

 

I don't have a separate plan from yours. All I am suggesting is a modification to your plan. Anything you launch early, you instead launch at the same time the people launch. The only difference I am suggesting is that instead of placing things far away from you, you instead have those things close to you.

[finster]

No, that hasn't always been your point.

 

 

They are your contingencies, they are your backups, they are your redundancies, they are your supplies.

 

I don't have a separate plan from yours. All I am suggesting is a modification to your plan. Anything you launch early, you instead launch at the same time the people launch. The only difference I am suggesting is that instead of placing things far away from you, you instead have those things close to you.

 

how can you be absolutely sure you will launch with enough supplies to make it?

Edited April 23, 2012 by finster

[zapatos]

how can you be absolutely sure you will launch with enough supplies to make it?

Because it is included in your plan. I'm just changing the timing of the launches.

Edited April 23, 2012 by zapatos