Interstellar Travel Challenge

[renormalised (Carl)]

Originally Posted by avandonk

Here is my jaundiced view.

They have cures for that, you know

Originally Posted by avandonk

• Human survival:
We are not even looking after the one home we have Spaceship Earth. To try to establish another as a backup would take huge resources and is a complete fools errand. It is also a plausible excuse for ruining the only home we have.

The fools errand is keeping on the path that we've been going down for the last 100 or so years. It would only be a plausible excuse to ruin our own home if we allow it to continue, and allow the same people to continue running the show. It's also best not to put all one's eggs in the one basket. This planet isn't as cosy as we would like to think.

Originally Posted by avandonk

• Contact with other life: Remote sensing is the safe way to go. Interstellar distances are just too vast. Just hope 'they' do not come here as 'they' would be millions of years ahead of us. Ask the Aboriginal, Indian, African etc what happens when a more advanced mob turn up.
Also see time travel. If time travel was possible we would be inundated with tourists as would the ancient Romans and Greeks and ....!

Interstellar distances are only too vast for our own, presently, primitive technology. Just because we can't do it doesn't mean that others can't. Why would they necessarily be millions of years ahead of us...that is fallacious. We haven't a clue at what we'll have in 50 or 100 years, let alone any longer span of time. As for the "noble savage gets rolled over by the more advanced culture" business...that's an even bigger one. You are trying to equate alien cultures with the same motives and actions as Earth humans of earlier centuries. We have no idea what the motivations of an alien culture would be, so we have no way to tell what would happen. The only thing we can control (and rather poorly at that) is our own reactions. If our society did collapse, it would be entirely our own fault, no one else's. What we need to do is to grow up.

As for time travel...we have no idea of what restrictions maybe put on being able to do so. There maybe strict conditions for traveling back through time to more primitive cultures, in many advanced societies. I would suggest that, if, and when we develop the technology ourselves, we limit the means of travel back as well. Through law, if need be, for the protection of those less advanced societies.

Originally Posted by avandonk

• Evolution of the human species: Genetic manipulation may allow humans to withstand the long interstellar journeys. We could also modify people to survive extreme environments. Any volunteers? Is this life as we know it Jim?

What would be the need to do so, if we can travel with ease anywhere we wanted to. Your premise precludes any ability to travel FTL. Like I said earlier, we have no idea of what future technology will bring. All options are open. Genetic manipulation will occur regardless, as will the natural evolution of the species.

Originally Posted by avandonk

• Scientific discovery: What could we achieve in interstellar space we cannot do locally? You would certainly find out what loneliness is!

That is being rather parochial. We would be no more lonely out in interstellar space than what we are already here. The whole point of going out there is to see what's there, to explore all the possibilities of existence, to make sure that we're not lonely....even if that means it's just us and our colonies. It's also to learn about ourselves and our place here.

Originally Posted by avandonk

• Belief and faith: This one is rather spurious. If we cannot find an Omnipresent All Knowing God on Earth we are unlikely to find him/her residing in a basement on a planet orbiting Alpha Centauri along with the Unicorn and the pink fluffy pussycat or any other figment of superstitious stone age minds. You may find the plans for the new hyperspace freeway though!

I agree wholeheartedly with that, although we may find other ways through our explorations.

Oh, and if you want to know, God...or at least the group of students that claim to be God, live in the basement of a house on 18 Scorpii. The whole religion/faith thing on this planet was actually a college fratboy prank that went horribly wrong. They're sorry now that it went pear shaped and they want to make reparations. Or, at least, the college they attend has made sure that appropriate academic disciplinary actions have been taking against those students involved

[CraigS]

Originally Posted by renormalised

We haven't a clue at what we'll have in 50 or 100 years, let alone any longer span of time.
…
Your premise precludes any ability to travel FTL. Like I said earlier, we have no idea of what future technology will bring. All options are open.

Carl;

Is it just my interpretation, or are you indeed dispensing with every known Law of Physics when you speculate a mere one century into the future ?

For me to accept your speculations, I seem to have to suspend recognition of the evidence that the Laws of Physics may actually be independent of undisturbed time, over a period of a mere 100 years !

It seems that your speculations of the future, give rise to physical conditions which do not exist in the present, (nor do they recognise that such conditions have existed in our extrapolations backwards, for some 13.7 billion years).

Am I reading the basis of your speculations, as per your intentions ?

I mean .. FTL hasn't been known to be possible for any known matter, for at least 13.7 billion years, eh ? On this basis, I would say a case needs to be presented, with some semblance of physical reality/theory that our perceptions extrapolated from the past, may not recognise something which has been overlooked (or not recognised) by Science.

I seek some semblance of credibility stemming from the physical universe, in order to understand your visions of the future. Scientific speculation still requires some physical reality underpinning it .. especially when bidding for funding.

Cheers

[renormalised (Carl)]

Originally Posted by CraigS

Carl;

Is it just my interpretation, or are you indeed dispensing with every known Law of Physics when you speculate a mere one century into the future ?

For me to accept your speculations, I seem to have to suspend recognition of the evidence that the Laws of Physics may actually be independent of undisturbed time, over a period of a mere 100 years !

It seems that your speculations of the future, give rise to physical conditions which do not exist in the present, (nor do they recognise that such conditions have existed in our extrapolations backwards, for some 13.7 billion years).

Am I reading the basis of your speculations, as per your intentions ?

I mean .. FTL hasn't been known to be possible for any known matter, for at least 13.7 billion years, eh ? On this basis, I would say a case needs to be presented, with some semblance of physical reality/theory that our perceptions extrapolated from the past, may not recognise something which has been overlooked (or not recognised) by Science.

I seek some semblance of credibility stemming from the physical universe, in order to understand your visions of the future. Scientific speculation still requires some physical reality underpinning it .. especially when bidding for funding.

Cheers

I'm not suspending anything with my statement, Craig. But neither do I think, as you seem to think, that the laws of physics are somehow inviolate, that whatever progress we might make over the next 50, 100, 200, 1000 years might not (and probably will) see them change (even completely). If you can't accept that might occur then that is your paradigm. Yet, in a previous post, you were willing to go with the idea that the laws of physics were up for grabs, so to speak. I think history is a great teacher in this regard. Otherwise, GR/SR and many other theories may not have come about. Actually, we'd still be living in caves, so to speak. However, their present day efficacy doesn't mean they'll hold true in the future.

As for FTL, I think you need to go back and take a good look at the theory. Most science, Craig, starts off as speculation and fantasy. Most of our present cherished notions would've been scoffed at 50 to 100 years ago. Einstein was scoffed at for some time because very few initially understood his theories. Quantum theory was scoffed at because they had no empirical evidence...it was all just speculation. Same with string/M theory, supersymmetry, parallel universes, higher dimensions and a lot of things far weirder than FTL. Yet they spend billions studying these things. If we had to justify studying science on the basis of some idea of having some "physical reality" (whatever that is) underpinning it, we would get nowhere. That would be just as restrictive as making some theory akin to inviolate law (which has happened to GR/SR). That is religious in its intention and scope.

[CraigS]

Originally Posted by renormalised

I'm not suspending anything with my statement, Craig. But neither do I think, as you seem to think, that the laws of physics are somehow inviolate, that whatever progress we might make over the next 50, 100, 200, 1000 years might not (and probably will) see them change (even completely). If you can't accept that might occur then that is your paradigm. Yet, in a previous post, you were willing to go with the idea that the laws of physics were up for grabs, so to speak. I think history is a great teacher in this regard. Otherwise, GR/SR and many other theories may not have come about. Actually, we'd still be living in caves, so to speak. However, their present day efficacy doesn't mean they'll hold true in the future.

Hmmm … I don't think the Laws of Physics are 'inviolate' at all. A 'Law' is a phenomenon that has been observed many times, and no contrary examples found, that it is accepted as a universal phenomenon .. but that doesn't mean that exceptions don't exist. By the same token, if these exceptions are found in the future, this doesn't necessarily rule out everything which the Law has already explained to date, either.

I think in the previous post, was it the one about the Uncertainty Principle ? .. not sure (??) … but in this, they have developed a way to make momentum and distance measurements such that the present interpretation of the 'Principle' is still valid. Principles are precepts anyway, so rewording them shouldn't be a problem either.

I think my point is there are limits to which we'd have to constrain our thinking when looking only 100 years in the future. Regardless of whether these limits are right or not in 50 or 100 years time, (who would ever know this in the present, anyway), funding is only ever justified in today's terms and today's known environments. I think this is what Bert was addressing, and I think he's being very realistic.

Originally Posted by renormalised

As for FTL, I think you need to go back and take a good look at the theory. Most science, Craig, starts off as speculation and fantasy. Most of our present cherished notions would've been scoffed at 50 to 100 years ago. Einstein was scoffed at for some time because very few initially understood his theories. Quantum theory was scoffed at because they had no empirical evidence...it was all just speculation. Same with string/M theory, supersymmetry, parallel universes, higher dimensions and a lot of things far weirder than FTL. Yet they spend billions studying these things. If we had to justify studying science on the basis of some idea of having some "physical reality" (whatever that is) underpinning it, we would get nowhere. That would be just as restrictive as making some theory akin to inviolate law (which has happened to GR/SR). That is religious in its intention and scope.

So where would you draw the line between science and pseudoscience when it comes to the speculation/fantasy stage ?

Why is not speculation/fantasy not pseudoscience, especially when bidding for funding ?

I'm not out to have a go at you specifically here, either … I'm actually very interested to see the final bids in this 'competition'.
I reckon it'll be a good eye-opener for us all !

Cheers

[renormalised (Carl)]

Originally Posted by CraigS

Hmmm … I don't think the Laws of Physics are 'inviolate' at all. A 'Law' is a phenomenon that has been observed many times, and no contrary examples found, that it is accepted as a universal phenomenon .. but that doesn't mean that exceptions don't exist. By the same token, if these exceptions are found in the future, this doesn't necessarily rule out everything which the Law has already explained to date, either.

Do you know what science we will know 100 years into the future?? I don't either. That's why any progress we will make might change our views completely. Have a look at what we knew 100 years ago compared to now. Go back another 100 years and compare. Another 100. Exceptions don't necessarily rule everything out, but the chances of complete change are not neglible and the further into the future you go the greater the chance for change.

Originally Posted by CraigS

I think in the previous post, was it the one about the Uncertainty Principle ? .. not sure (??) … but in this, they have developed a way to make momentum and distance measurements such that the present interpretation of the 'Principle' is still valid. Principles are precepts anyway, so rewording them shouldn't be a problem either.

Agreed.

Originally Posted by CraigS

I think my point is there are limits to which we'd have to constrain our thinking when looking only 100 years in the future. Regardless of whether these limits are right or not in 50 or 100 years time, (who would ever know this in the present, anyway), funding is only ever justified in today's terms and today's known environments. I think this is what Bert was addressing, and I think he's being very realistic.

The limits are only self imposed. So is any funding, but most funding in any case is based on the economic cycle and the whims of politicians.

Originally Posted by CraigS

So where would you draw the line between science and pseudoscience when it comes to the speculation/fantasy stage ?

Why is not speculation/fantasy not pseudoscience, especially when bidding for funding ?

I'm not out to have a go at you specifically here, either … I'm actually very interested to see the final bids in this 'competition'.
I reckon it'll be a good eye-opener for us all !

Cheers

In the speculation/fantasy stage, the line between what could be called "the science" and the "pseudoscience" is very blurred in any case. It all depends on where your knowledge stands at that particular moment. It's only through further research and evidence that the lines start to become clearer. But there will always be a boundary between them where they blend....on the "cutting edge" so to speak. Although, it's more like a spectrum of light with a gradual gradation between the colours.

All science, to various degrees, is pseudoscience when it comes to funding and given most politicians complete lack of scientific understanding, it might as well be all fantasy and/or fiction.

Some pseudoscience is just science waiting to be discovered, but most of the pseudoscience we do see these days can be reasonably dismissed using what we know now, and can reasonably speculate as to what may be known in the near future. Like the EU, for instance. It doesn't take a new scientific paradigm to show where it's at fault. In order for that to change, they would have to come up with incontrovertible evidence to the contrary that was not only observable but also concurred with their theories and superseded present theory...meaning a better explanation for what we see occurring. So far, they have failed miserably in all departments.

[bojan]

Originally Posted by renormalised

As for the "noble savage gets rolled over by the more advanced culture" business...that's an even bigger one. You are trying to equate alien cultures with the same motives and actions as Earth humans of earlier centuries. We have no idea what the motivations of an alien culture would be, so we have no way to tell what would happen.

I must strongly disagree with this statement.

The evolution in general prefers aggressive species - they have advantage over other, less aggressive and capable to protect or claim their living space and territory.
As a result, humans are what they are, aggressive and seeking control even over other, human "tribes" (read: nations cultures etc).

To me it is quite obvious that evolution on other inhabited planets will result in very similar (if not much worse) behaviour of successful species.

So, I fully agree with Dr. Hawking opinion on the issue. Better be safe than sorry.

[CraigS]

Originally Posted by bojan

I must strongly disagree with this statement.

The evolution in general prefers aggressive species - they have advantage over other, less aggressive and capable to protect or claim their living space and territory.
As a result, humans are what they are, aggressive and seeking control even over other, human "tribes" (read: nations cultures etc).

To me it is quite obvious that evolution on other inhabited planets will result in very similar (if not much worse) behaviour of successful species.

So, I fully agree with Dr. Hawking opinion on the issue. Better be safe than sorry.

Hmm .. I think the process of Natural Selection results in the selection for those traits which result in the survival of a species for the ultimate purpose of achieving propagation through reproduction.

Aggression may be one such trait in a specific resource constricted, over-populated and thus, competitive environment, but there could easily be other environments and behaviours, which provide no dominance for aggressive species (eg: symbiosis, etc).

Also, certain traits detached from their native environments can quickly result in any competitive advantage completely disappearing, thereby resulting in the demise of that species. The encounter between an alien species and an Earth-originating species could go either way as far as I can imagine .. and then it depends on what environment the encounter occurs in. Neither humans nor aliens might survive.

In an inconceivably large universe (with similarly large starting conditions/permutations), Evolution itself, may also look chaotic and thus unpredictable.

Interesting.

Cheers

[xelasnave]

I wonder if there was a similar species to us living below the surface of Mars and they sat on large oil reserves how things may develope.
All life seems determined to rule territory to protect their energy. (food) so outcomes would turn on their use of the oil...
Given the implications that we may create reality(hinted at by quantum mechanics or folk who draw a long bow re uncertainly.) should we even be thinking about the posibilities for fear we create our alien senerios.
I often wonder if our species with follow the Startrek dream at some point in the distant future....at some point I guess we have to leave. .if we last we will have to leave.
alex

[CraigS]

Here ya go Bojan … this one mixes it all up and turns a common understanding of aggression/competitive behaviour in Evolution, on its ear (I had to read it a few times to get how it works .. its all news to me as well) …

Bacteria develop restraint for survival in a rock-paper-scissors community

"By becoming a better competitor in a well-mixed system, it could actually drive itself to extinction," said Joshua Nahum, a University of Washington graduate student in biology. "By growing faster, it actually can hurt its abundance."
…
"In patches with faster growth, members of the unrestrained patch burn through their victims and then are left to face their victims' victims, their own enemies," he said.

and the caveat …

The observed effect only applies to structured communities with limited migration, the researchers said. In an unstructured community with greater migration and mixing, a species that curbed its aggressiveness would not reduce its chances of being engulfed by its enemy.

So, from this, it looks like maybe my idea of living symbiotically amongst other species, would only work where migration is limited (by lack of inter-stellar travel capability). By staying put here on Earth, (as Bert suggests), we may actually improve our longevity !! If we intend to travel, we need to 'bulk-up' and get super aggro !

Very interesting, eh ?

Cheers

[renormalised (Carl)]

Originally Posted by bojan

I must strongly disagree with this statement.

The evolution in general prefers aggressive species - they have advantage over other, less aggressive and capable to protect or claim their living space and territory.
As a result, humans are what they are, aggressive and seeking control even over other, human "tribes" (read: nations cultures etc).

To me it is quite obvious that evolution on other inhabited planets will result in very similar (if not much worse) behaviour of successful species.

So, I fully agree with Dr. Hawking opinion on the issue. Better be safe than sorry.

I think you'll find, Bojan, that in the academic literature, the species who survive the longest and flourish are those that actually cooperate with one another, both within species and interspecies. This whole competition and survival of the species thing is a holdover of 19th and early 20th Century thinking for the most part. Yes, species do compete for resources, but if you really look in nature most species have specific niches which they occupy and only rarely do they actually compete openly with one another. Otherwise, nothing, or very little, would survive.

The world is far more complex than "dog eat dog", which is what's being implied.

Human aggressiveness has little to do with our innate natures and more to do with social conditioning. Yes, we can be aggressive, just like any other creature, but for the most part we're a rather cooperative species. If we weren't, we would've wiped ourselves out. Truly aggressive species don't last long. They either wipe themselves out or run into someone bigger and uglier than they are that does the job for them.

[renormalised (Carl)]

Originally Posted by CraigS

Here ya go Bojan … this one mixes it all up and turns a common understanding of aggression/competitive behaviour in Evolution, on its ear (I had to read it a few times to get how it works .. its all news to me as well) …

Bacteria develop restraint for survival in a rock-paper-scissors community



and the caveat …


So, from this, it looks like maybe my idea of living symbiotically amongst other species, would only work where migration is limited (by lack of inter-stellar travel capability). By staying put here on Earth, (as Bert suggests), we may actually improve our longevity !! If we intend to travel, we need to 'bulk-up' and get super aggro !

Very interesting, eh ?

Cheers

That's in a rather restricted community/environment within a rather primitive species that interacts on a very basic level with everything surrounding it. Applying it to more advanced communities and species organisations (except on the most base level) would be erroneous. There interactions between individuals and groups at this level is far more complex.

[bojan]

Carl, maybe you are right.
Still, here on Earth (humans are not included in this assessment - I believe that we, as a species, are currently in conflict with our environment (the indicator/proof for this statement is our current exponential population growth, and the levelling is nowhere in sight at the moment) we have a fine balance between predators and their food.
Obviously, the number of top predators is limited (by food supply - if they eat too much and/or there are too many of them the balance will be compromised and the automatic correction action takes place - predators die of hunger and the new balance is re-established (not necessarily the same one, new species may become part of the new picture.
So what will become of human race is still unknown, because as Craig mentioned, this is a chaotic process in it's core.
However, if we are constrained on Earth or to Solar System (maybe because the interstellar travel is not possible as such or simply too expensive) the scenario mentioned earlier (cooperation between humans) will be the only option for survival ... even after first instabilities due to new colonies across Solar System (new independent states formation... and whatever else may happen... possibilities are endless)

BUT.. if interstellar travel IS possible (however, Fermi paradox possibly suggests otherwise) we may be in trouble if we initiate (intentionally or not) the Contact.
Anyway, all this is VERY complex problem/issue.. a lot of food for thought

[renormalised (Carl)]

If we're as aggressive as some people think, maybe it's the aliens who might be in trouble if we go out there, not us. Would you want a species who treats itself and it's environment like we do, because of the sociopolitical-economic systems we presently have in place, going around out in your neck of the woods either intentionally or unintentionally throwing its weight around?? You would be better off quarantining a species like this until one of two things happened...they wiped themselves out, or they learnt to grow up. We're neither as backward nor as harmless as some people might think. We have no idea what our presence might do to some civilisations or to the balance of governance within the galaxy. For all we know, at present, we maybe considered a dangerous species or one that needs to be kept in check until we grow up or ship out, so to speak. That doesn't mean to say there aren't worse species out there, or that some may even be exploiting us at present for their own benefit and we mostly don't know about it, or dismiss it as silly fantasy. In all truth, we don't know what's happening and for all we know that maybe part of the quarantine.

Then you have to take the corollary of all that. We maybe being quarantined, not to protect anyone else out there, but for our own good. We may not be ready yet to move about freely in interstellar space, not because we're dangerous or anything, but because we maybe in danger or not ready to do so. We maybe too fractious a society to handle being confronted by a more belligerent spacefaring species. We maybe belligerent ourselves, but there maybe bigger dogs on the block, so to speak, that we're not yet ready to confront. We may need to grow up first before we're able as a society to move about out there in confidence. In confronting those bigger dogs like we are at present, we might trigger all sorts of trouble that could drag everyone into that trouble. Better to have us in a mature enough position, both technologically and as a society, where the nasties out there would think twice about trying anything. The quarantine might be being put in place by those societies who have our best interests at heart but are in a position to keep us from doing harm to anyone or have harm done to us by others.

The possibilities are infinite.

[avandonk]

It is even more complex than we all think. We are an integral part of our biosphere. Without it we would atrophy as a species.
All human life ultimately relies on other life from plants down to the microscopic life all around us. The web of symbiosis not fully understood.

If we could transplant say a thousand chosen humans to another 'inhabitable' planet they would die eventually as not all the organisms that they rely on for good health went as well.

There is nothing wrong with conjecture. In my opinion it is a distraction from the damage we are ALL doing to our Spaceship Earth.

We have nowhere to go. Better we look after the life support systems at home before we try to emulate them for a four hundred thousand year journey.

Even if we had the technolgy to freeze/unfreeze a complete human. Would you like to wake up after hundreds if not thousands of years of accumulated radiation and watch your body once thawed out show all the effects of a massive lethal radiation dose.

The people who had their bodies frozen and even more macabre just their heads are all going to have this problem. Just do the numbers of the background radiation we all live in let alone in outer space. Our repair systems can cope with these low levels in real time but not cumulative.


A last thought. Even if time travel were possible how would you navigate spatially. The Earth rotates goes around the Sun goes around the Galaxy is moving etc. Where were you even ten minutes ago relative to the 'fixed' Quasars.


Bert

[CraigS]

I reckon without question, the way to go is to send frozen ova and sperm on the journey. All some kind of robotic device would have to do is.. 'the deed'.
Bingo … instant humans on the other side of some big trip !

Oh .. a bit of water and food wouldn't go astray, either. Send plant/protein DNA or their reproductive bits & pieces along as well .. and a mini habitat. If it all dies as Bert says, well … at least I've fulfilled by end of the deal with DARPA .. I'll happily hand over sustaining life at the other end to someone else.

I actually wouldn't mind betting we've already sent microorganisms elsewhere in the Solar System unintentionally already. Whether they've survived or not remains to be seen.

Cheers
PS: This is intended as a 'light-hearted' post … the real quest is a lot more difficult as everyone says ...

[bojan]

Originally Posted by CraigS

I reckon without question, the way to go is to send frozen ova and sperm on the journey. All some kind of robotic device would have to do is.. 'the deed'..

Better still, DNA information should be recorded on some sort of memory device... Hard disk or something like this

[CraigS]

Yes bojan … I was thinking about this also, but I think there's a lot more to making (or reconstituting) a life-form than having the DNA sequence at hand. There's all this protein making 'machinery' one needs to do all that transcription and translation stuff … all this comes in a neat little package called a 'cell'.

Seems to me the smallest unit that would give the biggest bang-for-the-buck (and overcome the need for a heap of complex sub-molecular machinery), would be a cell .. if this is so, then the best cells to send would be ones that can reproduce the whole organism.

How you educate the end product as it grows up so it knows how the hell it got there and what its mission was .. well … Marlon Brando and his wife worked out how to do it for Christopher Reeve in Superman, I think.

(What a silly thought exercise this one is … but fun … )

Cheers

[bojan]

Originally Posted by CraigS

How you educate the end product as it grows up so it knows how the hell it got there and what its mission was .. well … Marlon Brando and his wife worked out how to do it for Christopher Reeve in Superman, I think.

(What a silly thought exercise this one is … but fun … )

Cheers

Well, computer again.. or robot.
And why not simply send a robots, instead mucking around with living cells ?
They carry such enormous quantities of useless information anyway..

[CraigS]

I'm afraid that proposal wouldn't be met with open arms bojan … (remember we're pitching for big bucks here .. gotta satisfy the bureacrats .. )

From the workshop paper …

Several views were shared by a majority of participants:
First, a long-term goal of interstellar travel does not require near-term attention to who might embark on such a journey. For now, the focus should instead be to enable the long-term technological capability for interstellar travel, as well as the social interest and imagination that are required to drive that technology innovation.

Robots are pretty boring nowadays ..

Second, direct human involvement, or some equivalent, will be necessary to make any long-term achievement sustainable. Part of the workshop’s introduction was a discussion of space exploration as a manifestation of the “Heroes Journey.” There was general agreement that a human element is necessary (though not itself sufficient) for sustainable support, i.e., pure robotic probe exploration was insufficient.

No pure robotic missions !! ..

Third, once an Earth-like planet is found (i.e., a place outside our solar system that is capable of supporting life), societies and individuals will be more likely to have a visceral reaction in support of interstellar travel. Such a destination would be where we could aim to travel.

That kind defines the target environment for us, eh .. ?

Bert's question about navigation has got me challenged, also !
How do ya do that at close to c ?

Cheers

[bojan]

Originally Posted by CraigS

No pure robotic missions !! ..

I still like Clarke's ideas from "Rendezvous with Rama" (first one of a trilogy) a lot ....

Originally Posted by CraigS

Bert's question about navigation has got me challenged, also !
How do ya do that at close to c ?

Cheers

Well, it's certainly not an easy task.. especially if time travel is involved (as Bert suggested)