• 0 Posts
  • 5 Comments
Joined 2 years ago
cake
Cake day: June 16th, 2023

help-circle

  • I just don’t see any of that leading to a ‘scifi’ image. None of those steps would change the sheer time it takes to get to Mars in a practical way, and that’s just a deal breaker for manned flight.

    On the flip side, we have had great advances in technology that makes unmanned science better, which in a way even more reduces the chances of scifi vision of ‘manned’ space flight to far places, because it just doesn’t make sense.


  • jj4211@lemmy.worldtomemes@lemmy.worldI love old sci-fi
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    2
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    18 hours ago

    Well, we haven’t sent a crewed mission to the moon in a while, because we don’t really have any particular benefit from it, and even if that had continued, that wouldn’t have fit with the scifi vision of how things should be. A Mars trip is theoretically possible, but that’s a multi-year mission for a single trip. That’s a lot for what would mostly a vanity project of a manned mission compared to sending probes.

    On the concept of a Venusian research station, the question would be… why? Staff would be in practical terms in no better position to study Venus than they would from Earth. All they could do would be supervise instruments in ways that could be done remotely.

    The point is while advancements are possible, none that would even tickle the more tame sci-fi visions of expansion within the solar system. The larger impediments to a Mars mission are just “why” not technical impediments, unless a technical improvement could cut that trip down by 10-fold, but nothing even vaguely hints at that being a possibility.


  • I think repeatedly hitting the moon would have had the world shrugging, none of the sci fi was ‘hey we made it to the moon and… stayed there’.

    A mission to the moon was a little under 2 weeks, a similar mission to mars would be well over two years. Sure, we could, but even the most adventurous human adventures in history have been measured in months, we’ve never displayed the will to commit to years for what would be a token mission.

    Yes, the tech could be improved with more investment, but the sci-fi results of even settling mars is just unreasonably far out.


  • jj4211@lemmy.worldtomemes@lemmy.worldI love old sci-fi
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    5
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    21 hours ago

    The rapid progress and then stalling is not caused by lack of investment, it’s the harsh reality of physics.

    We cracked how to have machines fly like birds and then it’s low hanging fruit to achieve amazing things in atmosphere.

    While exploring that, rocketry makes nearby space possible, and the moon is “right there”.

    But then things are exponentially farther away, and many of them bigger gravity wells, making the trips too long and difficult to make two way trips.

    In a very very short time we got heavier than air flight, rocketry, fission, mass production, and all sorts of robotics and computing. But reach breakthrough has a point where we scratch our heads trying to do better. A ton has been spent and will continue to be spent trying to crack controlled fusion. Someone that lived through us managing to split an atom for the first time to fairly widespread deployment naturally assumed fusion would be next and maybe not too long after something that would extract energy directly according to Einstein’s most famous formula.