What if re. Alpha Centauri
- Thread starter T J
- Start date
You'll find lots of discussion and musing on this very question at the following blog:
http://www.centauri-dreams.org/
And we may have the answer pretty soon. There are several planet-search efforts currently directed at the Alpha Centauri system, and we're probably within a year or two of knowing for sure whether it holds an Earth-sized planet in a habitable zone.
If the findings are positive, it's sure to spark considerable interest. Finding an Earth-sized exoplanet anywhere would be big news, but finding a potentially habitable one only 4.3 light-years away would be massive, since it's potentially reachable. It could well spark new efforts to develop interstellar propulsion, and would certainly become a major target of astronomical research.
http://www.centauri-dreams.org/
And we may have the answer pretty soon. There are several planet-search efforts currently directed at the Alpha Centauri system, and we're probably within a year or two of knowing for sure whether it holds an Earth-sized planet in a habitable zone.
If the findings are positive, it's sure to spark considerable interest. Finding an Earth-sized exoplanet anywhere would be big news, but finding a potentially habitable one only 4.3 light-years away would be massive, since it's potentially reachable. It could well spark new efforts to develop interstellar propulsion, and would certainly become a major target of astronomical research.
It's not like it would be a shock.
We've been making sci-fi books and movies about other planetary systems for a century.
And its not like we can do anything about it. We can't get out of low Earth orbit for the past 30 years and our farthest probes would take 25,000 years to get there IF they were pointed in the right direction.
We've been making sci-fi books and movies about other planetary systems for a century.
And its not like we can do anything about it. We can't get out of low Earth orbit for the past 30 years and our farthest probes would take 25,000 years to get there IF they were pointed in the right direction.
But there's a huge difference between being aware of a possibility in fiction and discovering that it's actually real.
Ahh, you need to read the blog I linked to. There are many possibilities for developing faster methods of interstellar propulsion, and having a viable destination at such close range would be one hell of an incentive to develop them. It would probably still take at least a century to make them practical, but that's all the more reason to begin the effort as soon as possible. There is value in planning for the very long term.
Laser-accelerated microsails could be accelerated to relativistic speeds fairly easily. A fleet of microsail probes could reach an exoplanet around Alpha Centauri or some other nearby star within years or decades and send back a wealth of scientific data. And if that revealed something worth going there for in person, it would certainly inspire new propulsion research.
Remember, pretty much the whole Industrial Revolution happened because England and the rest of Europe were trying to find faster, better ways of reaching China and the Spice Islands for their trade goods, or of manufacturing goods of their own that could compete with Chinese porcelain, textiles, and the like -- which in turn required improving transportation in order to find new resources and new markets. When there's an economic and social incentive to develop more advanced propulsion, it can result in revolutionary advances. So don't assume that the current limitations on our technology are absolute. The reason we don't have the means for interstellar travel isn't that it's impossible, but simply that we haven't got an incentive yet.
(Well, actually we have a hell of an incentive; if we don't spread humanity out among the stars, some cataclysm will eventually come along to render us extinct. But humans aren't generally that good at seeing the long view, so they need some more tangible incentive like profit.)
Remember, pretty much the whole Industrial Revolution happened because England and the rest of Europe were trying to find faster, better ways of reaching China and the Spice Islands for their trade goods, or of manufacturing goods of their own that could compete with Chinese porcelain, textiles, and the like -- which in turn required improving transportation in order to find new resources and new markets. When there's an economic and social incentive to develop more advanced propulsion, it can result in revolutionary advances. So don't assume that the current limitations on our technology are absolute. The reason we don't have the means for interstellar travel isn't that it's impossible, but simply that we haven't got an incentive yet.
(Well, actually we have a hell of an incentive; if we don't spread humanity out among the stars, some cataclysm will eventually come along to render us extinct. But humans aren't generally that good at seeing the long view, so they need some more tangible incentive like profit.)
The main problem I see with laser accelerated microsails, at least for the initial voyages is decelerating once you get towards the target system. True any colony ship can be equipped with thrusters to slow down, but I reckon that the amount of thrust could be fairly substantial, especially if we're talking about ships large enough to carry enough people and equipment for a self sufficient colony.
Once a colony is set up, I could imagine that a colony could be equipped with some form of deccelerating 'catch' system with it's own set of lasers to decelerate any more incoming ships, and accelerating ships back to Earth.
Once a colony is set up, I could imagine that a colony could be equipped with some form of deccelerating 'catch' system with it's own set of lasers to decelerate any more incoming ships, and accelerating ships back to Earth.
Yeah, it could never be stressed enough. Shameful or inspiring (depending on your philosophical leaning), money was often the engine of scientific breakthrough.
Jeffrey Sinclair agrees.
I lean toward “inspiring” myself.
That's a good argument for pursuing radical life extension technologies.
We have about as Earth-like a planet as we're likely to find, and it's in our solar system - it's called "Mars." If you're looking to find something that we can move right into - a perfect match in terms of gravity, atmosphere, temperature etc - then you're going to be looking for a very long time. Earth didn't get to be Earth as the result of some inexorable, dependable evolutionary process but because of - among other things - when and how badly it got hit or didn't by lots of incoming shit.
Notably, in the nearly fifty years since we first sent unmanned probes to Mars we've made no serious effort to get there. There's no strong reason to think that'll be different in the next ten or twenty.
The likelihood that humanity would suddenly be intensely motivated to develop ships that could deliver human beings to a star system lightyears from now simply because we (somehow magically, prior to the development of fast drive systems) discover that we could breathe the air there is negligible. We wouldn't do it in a century, or two centuries.
There just aren't many people on this planet who consider such things to be priorities ahead of more immediate things.
Notably, in the nearly fifty years since we first sent unmanned probes to Mars we've made no serious effort to get there. There's no strong reason to think that'll be different in the next ten or twenty.
The likelihood that humanity would suddenly be intensely motivated to develop ships that could deliver human beings to a star system lightyears from now simply because we (somehow magically, prior to the development of fast drive systems) discover that we could breathe the air there is negligible. We wouldn't do it in a century, or two centuries.
There just aren't many people on this planet who consider such things to be priorities ahead of more immediate things.
^^^ A good point. We are already aware of a wealth of resources in our own solar system and we haven't even begun to exploit those. If we ever branch out into interstellar exploration, it will be after we at least attempt to harness what we have in our own backyard.
I'll raise you Venus. Mars is weak.
Nah - Venus is a perfect example of why looking for "other Earths" is destined to be far more frustrating than the current flush of enthusiasm - which is, in fact, based on nothing more than the excitement of our relatively recent ability to detect extrasolar planets - suggests. Despite being similar in many gross respects to Earth, the planet is useless to us as a place to live. Even the optimists who claim we should be launching planetary expeditions almost never suggest it as a destination.
And it ain't happenin'.
We probably won't launch a manned planetary expedition beyond the Moon in the next fifty years.
Well, yeah. And we could create enough artificial habitats in the Main and Kuiper Belts to sustain hundreds of times the current population of Earth, maybe thousands. But then, what if a supernova irradiates the whole Solar system, or a nanotech grey goo devours us all, or some other cosmic cataclysm happens? We're better off spreading out to the stars if we want to ensure our survival in the long term, even if it means survival as offshoot species descended from humanity.
Finding a habitable planet would change the entire space program. As of now, the space programs we have are totally aimless. Getting to Mars is a dream, yeah, but for what exactly? It's just a lifeless rock. There's nothing to gain from for anyone. Getting to the Moon was a political race, with the goal being to win against the other side, which is why it happened eventually.
But if they find an earth like planet right next to us, now that would make a major difference.
Had we discovered intelligent life on Mars 50 years ago, we'd be there already. To trade or conquest, but we'd be there.
But if they find an earth like planet right next to us, now that would make a major difference.
Had we discovered intelligent life on Mars 50 years ago, we'd be there already. To trade or conquest, but we'd be there.
Finding a habitable planet in another solar system, even one only 4 lightyears away, wouldn't change much in our space programs. The science isn't there yet to visit another star, never mind the engineering. The initial impact would most likely be on astronomy programs, as people race to get the first real images of said planet.
That's the point I was trying to make. No goal, no progress.
Ah, but Venus is far easier to terraform. Nothing short of crashing Titan, Europa, Ganymede and Io into Mars and waiting a few ten thousand years is going to increase its pitiful gravity or restart its geodynamo, which are not capable of holding an atmosphere or resisting the solar wind, respectively. Mars could be terraformed, but never permanently, and given this restriction, why bother with Mars, when if ephemeral terraformation is all you're after, Luna is right there?
Now Venus can be respun, cooled, and its atmosphere converted to N2/O2, and it would be liveable for millions to billions of years, and it would have nearly full Earth gravity. It would also have more available energy.
Heck, even mere colonization is probably easier, given that N2/O2 is a lifting mixture in the Venusian atmosphere; it almost makes "The Cloud Minders" seem not entirely goofy.
Edit: oh, on the minus side, iirc Venus is suspected to undergo massive resurfacing events or major volcanic periods, and definitely doesn't do plate tectonics, which sucks for long-term (My) habitation.
Of course, Christopher is right to the extent that such efforts are a bit of a waste of time compared to higher frontiers.
Last edited:
