Space Travel

[Metamorph]

“It is a bitter thought, but you must face it. The planets you may one day possess. But the stars are not for man.” ― Karellen, Arthur C. Clarke, Childhood's End


Have you ever thought about why humanity is not focused more on space travel? The only agendas you hear regarding going to space are the most outlandish, people who want to coop humans up in sardine-can spaceships that resemble submarine travel more than typical naval travel, when even the most popular space travel books, shows, and movies depict quite clearly that there will be many interplanetary space stations as well as hyperspace or warp (higher-dimensional) travel. All of this is very possible, yet humans are not focused on it. Why?

I think many elites have an agenda deep down, in that they are deeply convinced of the inferiority of humanity to other beings, and have made it their agenda to prove human inferiority. Human inferiority to what, though? Look at those ideas the "Illuminati" elites widely promote, such as the O9A glossary, Devil-worshipper Marina Abramović's presence at most elite events, or the trends of postmodernism. What is being promoted, exactly? That humans are inferior to demons is what is being promoted. And on what basis is it being promoted that humans are inferior to demons? The basis of humans being considered inferior to demons is that these people believe that the mind is inferior to the body and that the body can accomplish more. So the demonolators, which call themselves that, believe that humans have to degrade themselves before demons. Even the book I quoted features demons degrading the human intellect prominently, though the human intellect is generally referred to, perhaps rather spuriously but probably not entirely, under the label of psi or psionics within that book. O9A materials are uncannily similar and the agenda of postmodernism and Jung's cult of psychologism and chaos magick is uncannily similar.

It is always said humans were made in the image of God, but God is always referred to as being invisible, even in Christianity where God supposedly becomes a human. How can humans be made in the image of something that is invisible and that makes the demons envious and try to get us to worship them so that we will degrade ourselves and they will "prove" that they were superior after all? The answer is the human intellect is what the image of God is, humans were supposed to have dominion over all these things through rationality, science, reason, technology, and innovation. This is what the whole agenda of "Illuminati" elites is. That is why we do not see so much progress being made today. There are a hundred-thousand ways to try to misguide people into error. First they seemed to want to blame backwardness on religion, when at this point even the most stridently antitheistic tend to see the faults of "religion" as being more in specific religious belief systems and individual beliefs than anything. Then it was "love your nation and your culture!" but it is clearly a fallacy to see cultures and universal reason as not being somehow orthagonal, as if things like ways of dress, food, family, and language somehow nullified the universality of Truth. And now at last it is simply and brazenly "There is no truth! Truth is a construct created to oppress you!" As long as people do not accept Truth, whatever that is, they will turn to one falsehood or another, and it will all lead to the same place, for broad is the path that leads to destruction. I myself am not entirely comfortable with the truth, but Truth is what Truth is, and anyhow, that is exactly what is written. So give nothing you need not fear your fear. Truth is what Truth is, and even if the world must end first I at least will get to go to Mars... and far beyond, almost certainly to higher dimensions even. For the time being, I just laugh at whatever these people say they want to do to us. Mephistopheles is a clown, after all, just as humans are the image of the All-Encompassing.

[Not A Communist Shill]

Focussing on space is a luxury of wealthy nations and wealthy businessman. India often gets criticised for having a space programme despite having millions in poverty.

The UN has 17 Sustainable Development Goals that it wants to be achieved by 2030.

No. 1 is No Poverty, No. 2 is Zero hunger.

A 2017 estimate said that it would cost about $265 billion a year to achieve these two goals, equivalent to a third of the USA's annual defence budget. If we're not even achieving these goals, then we certainly shouldn't be focussing on space.

[Adam Strange]

Focussing on space is a luxury of wealthy nations and wealthy businessman. India often gets criticised for having a space programme despite having millions in poverty.

The UN has 17 Sustainable Development Goals that it wants to be achieved by 2030.

No. 1 is No Poverty, No. 2 is Zero hunger.

A 2017 estimate said that it would cost about $265 billion a year to achieve these two goals, equivalent to a third of the USA's annual defence budget. If we're not even achieving these goals, then we certainly shouldn't be focussing on space.

"Maybe India can turn poor into rocket fuel. Hit two birds with one stone.
Is working for citizens of Buryatia and Tuva.”

-Darth Putin

[Metamorph]

Focussing on space is a luxury of wealthy nations and wealthy businessman. India often gets criticised for having a space programme despite having millions in poverty.

The UN has 17 Sustainable Development Goals that it wants to be achieved by 2030.

No. 1 is No Poverty, No. 2 is Zero hunger.

A 2017 estimate said that it would cost about $265 billion a year to achieve these two goals, equivalent to a third of the USA's annual defence budget. If we're not even achieving these goals, then we certainly shouldn't be focussing on space.

Our problems are all completely infrastructure-related, for example, we have enough food and shelter and resources in the world, but no way to deliver the food or house the people; if we went to space, we would be way beyond having to care about infrastructure any more, because now our technology would be space travel.

[Not A Communist Shill]

Our problems are all completely infrastructure-related, for example, we have enough food and shelter and resources in the world, but no way to deliver the food or house the people; if we went to space, we would be way beyond having to care about infrastructure any more, because now our technology would be space travel.

I doubt infrastructure is a huge part of the problem for world hunger - it's more due to a lack of will and lack of funding in the right places. But as it is, humanity's been to the Moon, and yet much of humanity still lives in extreme poverty more than 50 years later.

To achieve the 17 goals would be comparatively cheap, and would actually have a far greater benefit than the cost. I'm astonished there is a huge lack of urgency to achieve them.

So many of the world's seemingly complex problems are directly affected by such failures.

[Metamorph]

I doubt infrastructure is a huge part of the problem for world hunger - it's more due to a lack of will and lack of funding in the right places. But as it is, humanity's been to the Moon, and yet much of humanity still lives in extreme poverty more than 50 years later.

To achieve the 17 goals would be comparatively cheap, and would actually have a far greater benefit than the cost. I'm astonished there is a huge lack of urgency to achieve them.

So many of the world's seemingly complex problems are directly affected by such failures.

What's the difference? We have enough food, but it's not getting to the right places.

I think the problems are intentional at this point, honestly.

[Not A Communist Shill]

What's the difference? We have enough food, but it's not getting to the right places.

I think the problems are intentional at this point, honestly.

Poverty and hunger has declines significantly in recent decades, I hope it can continue.

Aside from those two goals, even highly developed countries have a lot of work to do to achieve all 17 goals: they should be a priority rather than working out how to terraform Mars and Venus.

[Metamorph]

Poverty and hunger has declines significantly in recent decades, I hope it can continue.

Aside from those two goals, even highly developed countries have a lot of work to do to achieve all 17 goals: they should be a priority rather than working out how to terraform Mars and Venus.

Who is "highly developed countries?" There is only people. And many people appear to just want blood for the blood god. And those people appear to be making these decisions.

[godslave]

In the meantime...

 

[Not A Communist Shill]

Who is "highly developed countries?" There is only people. And many people appear to just want blood for the blood god. And those people appear to be making these decisions.

The UN has its Human Development Index, but also its inequality-adjusted Human Development Index.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_Development_Index

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...elopment_Index

I used the term "highly developed countries" as a simplistic term to describe countries that should be best placed to achieve the 17 Sustainable Development Goals.

[Metamorph]

The UN has its Human Development Index, but also its inequality-adjusted Human Development Index.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_Development_Index

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...elopment_Index

I used the term "highly developed countries" as a simplistic term to describe countries that should be best placed to achieve the 17 Sustainable Development Goals.

I know what the countries are, I'm simply saying that people make the decisions, they don't just happen as a result of the British national character or the German heritage or whatever.

[Not A Communist Shill]

I know what the countries are, I'm simply saying that people make the decisions, they don't just happen as a result of the British national character or the German heritage or whatever.

A lot of countries don't have democracy of course.

Ideally developed countries should promote democracy and not needlessly intervene militarily in other countries.

[Metamorph]

A lot of countries don't have democracy of course.

Ideally developed countries should promote democracy and not needlessly intervene militarily in other countries.

I agree with not needlessly intervening militarily, but why democracy? Mr. Hilter was elected democratically, so it might be better to do without democracy. I am not convinced most people know how to run things; have you met most people? In fact, I am pretty anti-democracy as it is.

[Not A Communist Shill]

I agree with not needlessly intervening militarily, but why democracy? Mr. Hilter was elected democratically, so it might be better to do without democracy. I am not convinced most people know how to run things; have you met most people? In fact, I am pretty anti-democracy as it is.

The elections where he gained power were rigged, with opponents beaten up and killed, voters intimidated, ballot boxes tampered with. And of course he then stopped all further elections, which is hardly democratic.

Democracy is much better than the alternative: i.e. not allowing people to decide how things should be run.

[Metamorph]

The elections where he gained power were rigged, with opponents beaten up and killed, voters intimidated, ballot boxes tampered with. And of course he then stopped all further elections, which is hardly democratic.

Democracy is much better than the alternative: i.e. not allowing people to decide how things should be run.

Yes, but most people might also want those things. It generally seems as if people would like to beat up their opponents, if 90% of the population wants brownshirts, stopping it is hardly democratic. I agree with something like a republic, I just think it's probably not viable for it to include everyone equally. How to decide who to include, I'd have to look at the political theorists, but Plato and the old ideas of citizenship seem fine to me.

[FreelancePoliceman]

A lot of countries don't have democracy of course.

Ideally developed countries should promote democracy and not needlessly intervene militarily in other countries.

Most countries don't have "democracy." Elections are fundamentally undemocratic, which is the point. In ancient Greece, cities which had elections were called "oligarchies," both by Greeks and by modern historians. But for some reason -- I can't imagine why -- when people talk about modern states they say "democracy" when they nearly always mean "plutocracy."

Whenever some muppet on TV talks about "defending our democracy" or how so and so is a "threat to our democracy," substitute "plutocracy" in your head. "Democracy" is used, incorrectly, for a reason: to muddle thought. If you want to think clearly it helps to use the right words.

[Not A Communist Shill]

Most countries don't have "democracy." Elections are fundamentally undemocratic, which is the point. In ancient Greece, cities which had elections were called "oligarchies," both by Greeks and by modern historians. But for some reason -- I can't imagine why -- when people talk about modern states they say "democracy" when they nearly always mean "plutocracy."

A true democracy would mean everyone was involved in every decision, which is essentially impossible for states. Elected representatives may be rather removed from the rest of society for various reasons, but the political process is still democratic. But naturally there's a great deal of variety amongst democracies in how democratic they are.

[Not A Communist Shill]

Yes, but most people might also want those things. It generally seems as if people would like to beat up their opponents, if 90% of the population wants brownshirts, stopping it is hardly democratic. I agree with something like a republic, I just think it's probably not viable for it to include everyone equally. How to decide who to include, I'd have to look at the political theorists, but Plato and the old ideas of citizenship seem fine to me.

How is a country with 1 authoritarian leader wanting brownshirts a superior system than one ruled by 90% of the population wanting brownshirts?

I may not like what the masses think about an idea (like capital punishment), but I think society would be a lot worse if there was a disconnect between what society wanted and what the government pursued.

[FreelancePoliceman]

A true democracy would mean everyone was involved in every decision, which is essentially impossible for states. Elected representatives may be rather removed from the rest of society for various reasons, but the political process is still democratic. But naturally there's a great deal of variety amongst democracies in how democratic they are.

No. Sortition of offices is a perfectly valid method of ensuring that a vote doesn't need to be taken on every issue. Athenian democracy did use this method and the state functioned well. The "political process" is not "democratic" because you are presented with the option of which oligarch to support, and if you're going to persist in claiming that, don't ever claim any kind of continuity with modern "democracy" and classical thought.

[Not A Communist Shill]

No. Sortition of offices is a perfectly valid method of ensuring that a vote doesn't need to be taken on every issue. Athenian democracy did use this method and the state functioned well. The "political process" is not "democratic" because you are presented with the option of which oligarch to support, and if you're going to persist in claiming that, don't ever claim any kind of continuity with modern "democracy" and classical thought.

Sounds like a good idea.

In theory, anyone who meets the basic requirements can become POTUS. Truman wasn't even a millionaire.

[FreelancePoliceman]

Sounds like a good idea.

In theory, anyone who meets the basic requirements can become POTUS. Truman wasn't even a millionaire.

Truman was, however, backed by a Democratic machine boss.

[Not A Communist Shill]

Truman was, however, backed by a Democratic machine boss.

The USA has democracy at all levels of life, from Class president, to councillor, mayor, senator, POTUS. The political process may heavily disenfranchise groups of people, but the USA has it pretty good.

[FreelancePoliceman]

The USA has democracy at all levels of life, from Class president, to councillor, mayor, senator, POTUS. The political process may heavily disenfranchise groups of people, but the USA has it pretty good.

Well yes, if you define "democracy" as oligarchy, the US has democracy at all levels of life. My problem is that that idea of "democracy" is deliberately confusing.

[Metamorph]

Well yes, if you define "democracy" as oligarchy, the US has democracy at all levels of life. My problem is that that idea of "democracy" is deliberately confusing.

You said deliberately! Oh no, you must be a conspiracy theorist!

[xerx]

We don't have democracy because it gives liberals a warm feeling. We have it to prevent civil war. When a faction is completely barred from political power, that sets the stage for an insurrection.

[Metamorph]

We don't have democracy because it gives liberals a warm feeling. We have it to prevent civil war. When a faction is completely barred from political power, that sets the stage for an insurrection.

I think it depends on what you mean by democracy. We can have classical systems of democracy or republicanism and I think that is good, but what we have now seems different and corrupt and more like mob rule.

[xerx]

I think it depends on what you mean by democracy. We can have classical systems of democracy or republicanism and I think that is good, but what we have now seems different and corrupt and more like mob rule.

Democracy can indeed entrench plutocratic interests. The rich do usurp the law to protect their wealth, and they do it by hiding behind the veneer of meritocracy. I don't disagree, and I do understand the temptation to support a strongman to overthrow a decrepit elite like that.

[InterPrizeWes]

Wow, I just went here and saw satan. The flight traffic artist makes insects start a jungle on the moon.

So the ultimate, the goal, the prized symbol of humanity seeks refuge and love with high minded sketches of final frontiers and stretching our knowledge to conjecture the absolute Eden of wisdom our science transcends.

[Hot Scalding Gayser]

People used to be into it more. Nowadays the Elites view it as a vast area that's just dark and cold with nothing interesting to explore, not like the romantic fantasies of old school Star Trek etc. Even on Star Trek: Suck Tard. (I mean Picard! No, I mean Suck Tard...) they made some grimdark and depressive comment about how space was dark and cold lol. It's not like they were wrong (although very possible it was wrong since it came from the Illuminaughty), but it's also kind of like being the guy who talks about how bad poop smells at a party. We know?

Why build a spaceship when you could hurt somebody's feelings or exploit naive people for money - and you'd need money and resources to build a spaceship; I wouldn't know all the complicated systems and legal procedures behind doing such a thing. Even when they do handle the rational & logical aspects, it feels like only half the battle. And if emotionally deep down inside you strongly believed what you'd find wasn't going to be that interesting, well in this case the Law of Attraction would be correct and you wouldn't be motivated to even try and it wouldn't be that interesting. I don't intend to add more deadness to the death, but the sad reality is most people are probably just too dead inside. So we have to take care of that first before we talk about Space Travel.

And you could fly to the most interesting planet in the universe and still be unimpressed or just take it over and turn it into another Earth the way columbus probably raped a bunch of Native Americans. We need TV Picard back again IRL, but the real "Picard" is just some old guy who wants to be some boring and dumb action movie guy who is about 1/20th as interesting as he thinks he is. And we need to make it cool to be like that again- but culturally now it's the opposite permeating out of everywhere.

I guess to answer your question, the Elite suck the joy and wonder out of everything on purpose to control people and be assholes- even if that means they do it to themselves as well. Not just space travel but why aren't people interested in hardly anything like they used to be. And it's not right to try and mix idealism with pessimism as though both are valid, because people just get pessimistic when you do that.

[End]

“It is a bitter thought, but you must face it. The planets you may one day possess. But the stars are not for man.” ― Karellen, Arthur C. Clarke, Childhood's End


Have you ever thought about why humanity is not focused more on space travel? The only agendas you hear regarding going to space are the most outlandish, people who want to coop humans up in sardine-can spaceships that resemble submarine travel more than typical naval travel, when even the most popular space travel books, shows, and movies depict quite clearly that there will be many interplanetary space stations as well as hyperspace or warp (higher-dimensional) travel. All of this is very possible, yet humans are not focused on it. Why?

I think many elites have an agenda deep down, in that they are deeply convinced of the inferiority of humanity to other beings, and have made it their agenda to prove human inferiority. Human inferiority to what, though? Look at those ideas the "Illuminati" elites widely promote, such as the O9A glossary, Devil-worshipper Marina Abramović's presence at most elite events, or the trends of postmodernism. What is being promoted, exactly? That humans are inferior to demons is what is being promoted. And on what basis is it being promoted that humans are inferior to demons? The basis of humans being considered inferior to demons is that these people believe that the mind is inferior to the body and that the body can accomplish more. So the demonolators, which call themselves that, believe that humans have to degrade themselves before demons. Even the book I quoted features demons degrading the human intellect prominently, though the human intellect is generally referred to, perhaps rather spuriously but probably not entirely, under the label of psi or psionics within that book. O9A materials are uncannily similar and the agenda of postmodernism and Jung's cult of psychologism and chaos magick is uncannily similar.

It is always said humans were made in the image of God, but God is always referred to as being invisible, even in Christianity where God supposedly becomes a human. How can humans be made in the image of something that is invisible and that makes the demons envious and try to get us to worship them so that we will degrade ourselves and they will "prove" that they were superior after all? The answer is the human intellect is what the image of God is, humans were supposed to have dominion over all these things through rationality, science, reason, technology, and innovation. This is what the whole agenda of "Illuminati" elites is. That is why we do not see so much progress being made today. There are a hundred-thousand ways to try to misguide people into error. First they seemed to want to blame backwardness on religion, when at this point even the most stridently antitheistic tend to see the faults of "religion" as being more in specific religious belief systems and individual beliefs than anything. Then it was "love your nation and your culture!" but it is clearly a fallacy to see cultures and universal reason as not being somehow orthagonal, as if things like ways of dress, food, family, and language somehow nullified the universality of Truth. And now at last it is simply and brazenly "There is no truth! Truth is a construct created to oppress you!" As long as people do not accept Truth, whatever that is, they will turn to one falsehood or another, and it will all lead to the same place, for broad is the path that leads to destruction. I myself am not entirely comfortable with the truth, but Truth is what Truth is, and anyhow, that is exactly what is written. So give nothing you need not fear your fear. Truth is what Truth is, and even if the world must end first I at least will get to go to Mars... and far beyond, almost certainly to higher dimensions even. For the time being, I just laugh at whatever these people say they want to do to us. Mephistopheles is a clown, after all, just as humans are the image of the All-Encompassing.

This one is actually readily answered from my end. See, the "elite" don't seek to prove the inferiority of mankind to whatever they perceive themselves to be. They just seek to defy God. Evil is their good and good is their evil. If this sounds so dumb and stupid to you it hurts than congratulations you're sane. Sin makes you stupid. Catholic theologians can put it better than I can but let's just say that rebelling against our God-given rational intellect has a rather obvious side-effect.

It also seems like our mindsets are quite similar. Truth is truth. You can hate it. You can wish it was not like that. Yet it is what it is and nothing you do will change it. You either accept that and adapt or you can defy it and suffer most painfully. This is how I've always perceived the "Gamma" mindset. Reality is reality. Either accept, adapt, and overcome or don't and suffer failure after failure. This is the worldview that results from / joining with /. A seemingly fluid worldview at first glance yet is ultimate crystalline.

There is also the practical and funnily enough damn near atheistic reason they'd hate for humanity to achieve cheap and easy space travel. Y'know about Hans-Hermann Hoppe and his idea of Covenant Communities, right? Well, if ya had a whole damn solar system with plenty of resources (and the Sol System is so stacked to the gills with them I'm certain that a detailed description of it would qualify as an ersatz "Eden" in some distant alien's pulp fiction) then holy hell there is literally no reason for any of us to fight! The "truth" will win out in the end. Let X faction/community control the starlifting arrays. So long as they don't get uppity and forceful they'll come around. In the event they start to use their position to force others to adhere to their dogmas, well, the array is awfully fragile in the ultimate analysis and at that point they'd be pissing off literally trillions of humans who know that quantity has a quality all its own...

This would obviously defuse pretty much any reason for anyone of us to fight. Who gives a fuck who controls Ceres if me and mine have this awesome spot on Ganymede that grows wine grapes so good everyone's willing to pay six figures for but a single bottle of the wine we make?

I've pointed this fact out to everyone who cared to listen but the tech and capacity to realize the existence of things like cheap space travel, O'Niel Cylinders, Orbital Rings, etc. Is already here. We could do all that right here, right now. Yet we do not. Why? Because the PTB know what I know and they ain't about to allow us all to realize a future/world where they hold no true power. The Davos Men will fail in their attempts to confine us to this rock whilst maintaining their current power (seemingly absolute, yet also fading fast).

I just hope and pray that they don't try and glass this planet out of spite in the near future. They have enough nukes to do that and I fear they're as sore a loser as their lord and master....

[Metamorph]

I just hope and pray that they don't try and glass this planet out of spite in the near future. They have enough nukes to do that and I fear they're as sore a loser as their lord and master....

I don't think it'll be too long from a historical PoV for that to happen, honestly, people just don't see it because they're too fixated on places I would consider historical backwaters like Europe, America, and China. That's not meant to be an insult to those places, some of the most beautiful and resource-rich land in the world is in those locations, but from a historical perspective people are really caught up fighting over the Fertile Crescent and the areas of the oldest civilizations and not much of note seems to happen in Europe, America, and China. I say not much, not absolutely nothing. When I posted in the Ukraine Question thread that the Russia-Ukraine war appears to be about Zionism there's just radio silence for days afterwards. No one scolding me, no one posting as if I haven't posted, just acting like the thread doesn't exist due to me posting that analysis in an article. Yes, all our wars are really this demented and seemingly not-particularly-Christian crusade on rich brats in ME/NA's behalves it seems.

I said there that I predicted America would need Iran specialists much more than China ones years ago and no one listened to me. Granted, I was trying to become an Iran specialist and people didn't like that. China might have nuclear weapons and more advanced technology than anyone in the world, probably including the US and Japan, but it has no motivation to start a war, only to enter on others' behalves. And based on what I know now I'd actually predict it'd enter on the US's side even if people wouldn't admit it. Why? The US seems like Israel's proxxy and China seems to primarily rely on trade with Israel, Saudi Arabia, and America, not Iran and most of the rest of Asia. When that happens too I'll just be Cassandra all over again. However, I kind of think Zionists don't want anyone but them dealing with Iran, and that hubris will lead them to using their "preemptive" nuclear strikes once Iran, being Iran, does a lot of science and mathematics and builds not even a visible bomb but quietly builds a nuclear plant for power purposes. At that point they certainly really would have nuclear weapons, but no intent to use them except to defend themselves from Israel and its proxxies who have a habit of "preemptive strikes." And people still can't believe this is really what they're sending their children to die for.

There's probably a way to make it better but people are people and Sturgeon's Law applies to them so there's probably no way to stop it entirely.

[Fake Intellectual]

Space travel is a lot harder than you think. A lot harder.

I've been trying to come up with an efficient and actually realistic plan to get humans to the nearest exoplanet, Proxima B, in the shortest time possible. It can only be done in 30-40 years at least. Here's why:

Although transferring non-organic cargo to another star system isn't to difficult (relatively speaking), transferring humans is a completely different story. For one, humans can only withstand 1 earth gravity of acceleration without side effects (about 9.8 m/s/s) over an extended period of time. On top of that limitation, radiation would be a huge problem, especially if your plan involves using solar sails to slow down close to the star.

Now building the spacecraft themselves is not too difficult. You could launch 3-d printers to print structures in space, and transport filament to the printer using a SpaceX Starship. In fact, Starships make constructing structures in orbit a much more effective and timely task.

I could outline the entire plan I came up with to get humans to Proxima B. I haven't done any calculations, but the concepts are valid. Let me know if you want that info.

[Metamorph]

Space travel is a lot harder than you think. A lot harder.

I've been trying to come up with an efficient and actually realistic plan to get humans to the nearest exoplanet, Proxima B, in the shortest time possible. It can only be done in 30-40 years at least. Here's why:

Although transferring non-organic cargo to another star system isn't to difficult (relatively speaking), transferring humans is a completely different story. For one, humans can only withstand 1 earth gravity of acceleration without side effects (about 9.8 m/s/s) over an extended period of time. On top of that limitation, radiation would be a huge problem, especially if your plan involves using solar sails to slow down close to the star.

Now building the spacecraft themselves is not too difficult. You could launch 3-d printers to print structures in space, and transport filament to the printer using a SpaceX Starship. In fact, Starships make constructing structures in orbit a much more effective and timely task.

I could outline the entire plan I came up with to get humans to Proxima B. I haven't done any calculations, but the concepts are valid. Let me know if you want that info.

1. Build space stations everywhere like Star Trek and Star Wars
2. Have hyperspace travel like Star Trek and Star Wars

[Adam Strange]

1. Build space stations everywhere like Star Trek and Star Wars
2. Have hyperspace travel like Star Trek and Star Wars

I’m still waiting for my jet pack.

[Fake Intellectual]

1. Build space stations everywhere like Star Trek and Star Wars
2. Have hyperspace travel like Star Trek and Star Wars

I'm not sure why you would build space stations everywhere. That doesn't really help anything unless you're using chemical propulsion.

Also, warp drives require and insane amount of energy, much more than we humans are capable of producing (for the time being). Even fusion reactors wouldn't be enough. Plus, the acceleration of a sort of "warp drive" would kill any human. Unfortunately, there isn't a good way to vastly decrease the effects of rapid acceleration on the human body. You could freeze the human, but then the brain would become destroyed due to the ice crystals.

[Metamorph]

I'm not sure why you would build space stations everywhere. That doesn't really help anything unless you're using chemical propulsion.

Also, warp drives require and insane amount of energy, much more than we humans are capable of producing (for the time being). Even fusion reactors wouldn't be enough. Plus, the acceleration of a sort of "warp drive" would kill any human. Unfortunately, there isn't a good way to vastly decrease the effects of rapid acceleration on the human body. You could freeze the human, but then the brain would become destroyed due to the ice crystals.

Warp drives wouldn't kill humans from the acceleration alone so everything you're saying is suspect. I'm talking hyperspace drives, things moving people through the extra dimensions postulated by string theory. This would probably really only work in a braneworld theory but braneworld theories are great from a parsimony perspective as well and CERN has them on the list of models to test for.

I think space stations are helpful in general since people don't want to stay in basically a submarine for 40+ years. I wouldn't even want to stay in a submarine for 4 weeks.

[Fake Intellectual]

Warp drives wouldn't kill humans from the acceleration alone so everything you're saying is suspect. I'm talking hyperspace drives, things moving people through the extra dimensions postulated by string theory. This would probably really only work in a braneworld theory but braneworld theories are great from a parsimony perspective as well and CERN has them on the list of models to test for.

I think space stations are helpful in general since people don't want to stay in basically a submarine for 40+ years. I wouldn't even want to stay in a submarine for 4 weeks.

String theory hasn't even been proven....

Plus, you never even mention the resources required for a hyperspace drive. Everything you're saying is theoretical (especially with string theory not even having been proven yet).

You want to use antimatter? Sure, as long as you have a couple trillion dollars in hand, shouldn't be a problem.

Want to use a spacetime warp bubble? Sure, all you need is several hundred, if not thousand fusion reactors all going on at once, and the energy to start those fusion reactors in the first place.

You want to use wormholes? We don't even know if they exist, and we certainly don't know if they're safe......but go ahead.

So......good luck with those hyperspace drives. I'm sure they'll work out just fine, and physics won't get in the way whatsoever.

[Metamorph]

String theory hasn't even been proven....

Plus, you never even mention the resources required for a hyperspace drive. Everything you're saying is theoretical (especially with string theory not even having been proven yet).

You want to use antimatter? Sure, as long as you have a couple trillion dollars in hand, shouldn't be a problem.

Want to use a spacetime warp bubble? Sure, all you need is several hundred, if not thousand fusion reactors all going on at once, and the energy to start those fusion reactors in the first place.

You want to use wormholes? We don't even know if they exist, and we certainly don't know if they're safe......but go ahead.

So......good luck with those hyperspace drives. I'm sure they'll work out just fine, and physics won't get in the way whatsoever.

Technology advances. People haven't even tried. They aren't even thinking about it. Now you know why I get so exhausted with most people and just turn to "conspiracy theories." Other people care about twerking and I care about going to space.

[End]

Space travel is a lot harder than you think. A lot harder.

I've been trying to come up with an efficient and actually realistic plan to get humans to the nearest exoplanet, Proxima B, in the shortest time possible. It can only be done in 30-40 years at least. Here's why:

Although transferring non-organic cargo to another star system isn't to difficult (relatively speaking), transferring humans is a completely different story. For one, humans can only withstand 1 earth gravity of acceleration without side effects (about 9.8 m/s/s) over an extended period of time. On top of that limitation, radiation would be a huge problem, especially if your plan involves using solar sails to slow down close to the star.

Now building the spacecraft themselves is not too difficult. You could launch 3-d printers to print structures in space, and transport filament to the printer using a SpaceX Starship. In fact, Starships make constructing structures in orbit a much more effective and timely task.

I could outline the entire plan I came up with to get humans to Proxima B. I haven't done any calculations, but the concepts are valid. Let me know if you want that info.

Actually, if we really get down to the most absolute brass tacks, it ain't. See, if you wanted to go from where we are now to a mission to Proxima B than yeah that's a big damn near impossible ask if we attack the problem from your perspective. Logically speaking, however, we'd only ever consider launching a mission to Proxima B after we'd done a good job of effectively colonizing and exploiting the absolutely massive resources available within the Sol System as a whole (and that's if I ignore the Starlifting angle TBH) and going full post-scarcity mode and doing things because why the hell not? We could come damn close to that without Starlifting BTW.

Also, even at less than 1g acceleration things can compound and get pretty damn plausible pretty damn quickly. Have you heard of Issac Arthur? Here's a vid I think you'll find very pertinent:



Yes it can be done. Yes it's worth it. And yeah why the hell not! Hyperdrives and the like are merely fun shortcuts that make other things easier. I actually have little doubt we'll actually achieve those technologies despite the opinion of that vids creator. Even if he's absolutely right, however, it doesn't negatively impact the possibility of a fully colonized Milky Way even if speeds of only .1 percent lightspeed is as fast as any self-respecting spaceship could ever go...

[End]

I'm not sure why you would build space stations everywhere. That doesn't really help anything unless you're using chemical propulsion.

Also, warp drives require and insane amount of energy, much more than we humans are capable of producing (for the time being). Even fusion reactors wouldn't be enough. Plus, the acceleration of a sort of "warp drive" would kill any human. Unfortunately, there isn't a good way to vastly decrease the effects of rapid acceleration on the human body. You could freeze the human, but then the brain would become destroyed due to the ice crystals.

Ok now I'm really pissed off. You're a dumbass pop cultist who thinks that just because they watched every episode of Star Trek and/or read a single work of Isaac Asimov that you suddenly get what's going on on this front.

Do you even get how and why the discovery of how L4 and L5 work was such an absolute game changer? They are their own mini-gravity wells. A shipyard constructed there wouldn't need much in the way of station keeping fuel. The forces acting upon it at those particular points in space would do all the work barring true cataclysms like Gamma Ray Bursts somehow lancing the station like a precision artillery strike.

Y'know, events so unlikely to occur that that you'd be forgiven for failing to prepare for them.

I am now wondering if this is now a conflict that separates the LIE's from the ILI's. You may curse my predilection to wait and see before I fully commit to a critical decision. Yet I may rightfully curse you for committing to a course of action without gathering enough intel...