Where is everybody? (Fermi paradox)

[Kramodlog]

That's pretty cool, though it seems like a pretty small-scale thing, not a habitat-scale drill.

3D printing could have a lot to offer space missions. I've heard the Navy is very interested in 3D printing because of the sheer quantity of spare parts they're required to care currently for aircraft carriers and the like. It would be a lot more economical to ship large crates of "magic anything powder" into space than any collection of parts.

Honestly, what I'd really like to see is more work on near-Earth asteroids. Land some people on one of them. Gives you a base to launch further missions from, and room to play around with stuff like zero-g mining and habitat creation.

Like Cruithne?

 

[tomBitonti]

I'm thinking of water and waste systems. There are quite a number of very successful closed loop recycling systems available, and they have been available for many years now with very close to 100% reclamation. Heck, the ISS's system is about 93% efficient. The Biosphere's failure or success is completely irrelevant - we won't be trying to do recycling on that scale, in that way, for quite a long period of time.

That's the thing: We have a start, but, is it good enough for a colony? Probably not. Can we improve it enough? Don't know. The ISS doesn't make it's own food, or spare parts. I'm thinking that water is recycled, but solid waste is not. A 3D printer, as described upthread, sounds very useful -- until the printer breaks down and needs a part itself.

To me, that makes putting people into space (or on the moon, or mars), maybe feasible, but not definitely. I think we have a long way to go until we make the technology work well enough for a mostly self sustaining colony.

Thx!

TomB

 

[Nellisir]

A 3D printer, as described upthread, sounds very useful -- until the printer breaks down and needs a part itself.

That's why you have two printers, and backups of any parts that can't be printed.

http://reprap.org/wiki/RepRap

 

[Nellisir]

Like Cruithne?

That'd be nifty.

 

[trappedslider]

Honestly, if you have read Stephen Baxter's NASA books, ( the first one being hard sci-fi) it looks like we had the tech needed to get to the moon and stay on it...

in fact http://www.nss.org/settlement/nasa/75SummerStudy/Design.html and http://www.nss.org/settlement/nasa/spaceres/index.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_colonization

 

[Jan van Leyden]

Back to the original question.

In case a space society operates and thinks simliar to the human ones: return of investment. Even if you can travel interstellar distances, why would you do so? Once for curiosity's sake, for sure, but repeated attempts?

Another argument is Darwinism: why would one assume that alien beings operate and think simliar to us? They would be result of a darwinistic process on their planet with its own competitors. Humans claim to fame on Earth comes from our intelligence and approach to modify our surroundings to gain an advantage. Pretty full of ourselves to assume that each intelligent race would have to show the same attributes, isn't it?

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Another argument is Darwinism: why would one assume that alien beings operate and think simliar to us? They would be result of a darwinistic process on their planet with its own competitors. Humans claim to fame on Earth comes from our intelligence and approach to modify our surroundings to gain an advantage. Pretty full of ourselves to assume that each intelligent race would have to show the same attributes, isn't it?

Well, while the challenges may be different in the details, the nature of those challenges will be the same: they'll have to defeat their predators, develop systematic thought, have communication that allows for the accretion of knowledge, establish stable civilizations, etc.

I read somewhere last year that it is probable that whatever intelligent life may be out there has probably evolved from a predatory species. The reason? The process of hunting for prey, it was asserted, requires more intelligence than grazing.

All that said, sure, aliens will probably think differently than we do. We need only look at the creatures around us and extrapolate how we would be if we evolved from feline, canine, pachyderm or cetacian stock instead of great apes. Cephalopods?

They don't experience the world like we do as it is. How different would they be with a few billion more brain cells and synapses?

And because I can...

From Dexy's Cosmic Runners

Come on Aliens
Fermi's Paradox means (what it means)
At this moment you'd be everywhere
But your stellar address
In space I confess
Seems so empty
Oh, come on Aliens

 

[delericho]

What are your thoughts on the Fermi paradox?

Planets capable of sustaining intelligent life as we would recognise it are rarer than Fermi imagined. Of those, planets that actually sustain life are rarer still. And those that sustain intelligent life are much rarer still.

Still, that still leaves a huge number of candidates out there.

However, for any given intelligent life form, there is a race against time - can they get to a point where they have a meaningful off-world presence before either (1) and extinction-level event wipes them out, (2) they wipe themselves out, (3) they pollute the planet to the extent that it can no longer support them, or (4) they run out of the required resources. Thus far, we've managed to avoid #2, just, but #3 isn't looking too good.

Worse, until recently, the main driver of our technological advancement has been our desire to kill one another. (It now appears to be entertainment.) That suggests to me:

- if a lifeform is similar to us, in that they expend a lot of time killing one another, their technology will advance very quickly... but they'll almost certainly wipe themselves out before getting off-planet.

- if a lifeform is less aggressive than us, they'll be less likely to kill themselves off, but their technology likewise won't advance at the same rate - they may never get to the point where they have the ability to go off-planet.

Add to that the fact that going off planet is going to be hideously expensive, hugely dangerous, and has no prospect of a better life at the other end (unless and until we develop FTL and can travel to another Earth-like planet), there's very little incentive to actually do so. Living on the moon, or Mars, or probably anywhere else in our solar system is going to suck. And yet, that's a necessary first step before we can really consider a mission outwith the solar system.

Basically, I think there's probably plenty of life out there, but I doubt we'll ever establish meaningful communications, never mind physically visiting (or being visited by) them.

 

[Jan van Leyden]

Warning! Lots of speculation and speculation only ahead! Feel free to differ.

Well, while the challenges may be different in the details, the nature of those challenges will be the same: they'll have to defeat their predators, develop systematic thought, have communication that allows for the accretion of knowledge, establish stable civilizations, etc.

These are requirements and requisites to devlop something similar to humans/humanity, not a necessary result of evolution.

I read somewhere last year that it is probable that whatever intelligent life may be out there has probably evolved from a predatory species. The reason? The process of hunting for prey, it was asserted, requires more intelligence than grazing.

So this source tells us that we are not the most probable development of intelligent life?

All that said, sure, aliens will probably think differently than we do. We need only look at the creatures around us and extrapolate how we would be if we evolved from feline, canine, pachyderm or cetacian stock instead of great apes. Cephalopods?

They don't experience the world like we do as it is. How different would they be with a few billion more brain cells and synapses?

Goals and motivations are next to impossible to extrapolate, IMHO. This starts with other human beings, whom we should be able to comprehend, gets more difficult with, say, animals, and might be impossible with real aliens.

The Fermi paradoxon assumes that we can do, though, which makes it am unfounded theory.

 

[tomBitonti]

That's why you have two printers, and backups of any parts that can't be printed.

http://reprap.org/wiki/RepRap

Yeah. This is where I consider "close" to be "good enough". If only a few key components cannot be self replicated, shipping those few components in might be feasible. Not so good for an interstellar voyage, but maybe good enough for a base on the Moon or in Earth Orbit, or on Mars. Also, the substrate / "magic powder" might be something well suited to production given a surplus of energy (from sunlight), but a relative scarcity of materials.

I imagine that eventually, even the key components could be produced locally, so a problem which would solve itself eventually, and not something which would stop us from getting started.

Still have to figure out a closed cycle environment, and find a source of volatiles, and solve a fair number of technical problems. The question is, how close to self sustaining can it be made?

Thx!

TomB