Based on economic incentives, I would guess that the mining industry would conquer the new frontier way before any commercial space travel for humans--one way or two way. Unfortunately the mining industry today is the scummiest on earth. I honestly hope that Elon Musk and SpaceX get into space mining before say Rio Tinto, just because he deserves the billions more and would probably reinvest it for more socially good projects as well.
My vision of how it could be in [N=no_fucking_clue] decades: Completely unmanned from the beginning (just like mining on earth nearly already is), with a large-scale base on the moon. It starts with mining on the moon that is processed on the moon and shipped to the earth and the infrastructure is set up so that [M] decades later it would be the hub for inerplanetary mining operations as well.
You might be interested in Planetary Resources [1]. They're planning to mine resources from asteroids though – no gravity well (like the moon) makes for easier transport from the source to the consumer.
It's very unlikely that SpaceX will be entering the space mining business. Musk doesn't seem to be a big fan of it, except in the context of mining resources on Mars for consumption on Mars.
SpaceX will certainly be interested in putting someone else's mining equipment in space though. If there is an asteroid gold rush, they're selling the tickets.
This is probably a better point. Established mining companies would be better off investing in research on how to extract raw materials once they are at the location.
Let another company (e.g. SpaceX) deal with the transportation. The level of specialisation at every steps is huge.
I've actually been working on a ground based launch platform for automated space mining that uses magnetics and plasma lasers to launch the miners into space.
I've got a few drawings and stuff but I haven't published anything yet because there are a few things left to make sure of.
Such as, using a plasma laser, how much electricity would you need to pass along the beam to displace air?
That kind of thing, but I haven't had time to study up on it yet.
Space is f'n enormous and it's cold. People don't belong up there at all. I think we have a better chance of evolving into a different species, rather than the species we are getting past Jupiter.
The big problem with a moon base is that there is no carbon on the moon. So anything biological or requiring organic chemistry will have to be transported from earth.
Its weird to think the moon has more titanium than carbon. Surely it has some carbon rich meteors to scavenge, but... I guess a lunar colony would need to recycle pretty much all of its biomass.
> In a mere 60 years, we of Earth have gone from launching our first spacecraft, to exploring every planet and major moon in our solar system, to establishing an international, long-lived fleet of robotic spacecraft at the Moon and Mars.
Put like that it's pretty impressive. A lot of people, including me, tend to focus on humans in space and on other planetary bodies so think look a bit grim from that perspective.
We're doing pretty well exploring our solar system. I wonder how the jump to other solar systems is going to be once we're 'done' here.
> focus on humans in space and on other planetary bodies so think look a bit grim from that perspective.
In our imagination we focus on landing somewhere, but this seems a bit short sighted. We expend all that energy leaving one gravity well to end up at the bottom of another. But the act of living and travelling through space is exploration in its own right and hugely inspirational. And if you do want humans to live on another planet then learning how to function in space is a necessity. Why not focus on making space stations that are as self sustaining as possible?
>We're doing pretty well exploring our solar system. I wonder how the jump to other solar systems is going to be once we're 'done' here.
We can reallydo a lot more in our current exploration. Ideally we would have a permanent human presence on the moon and Mars if budgets kept up. Also a good exploration of Europa, Titan and other moons.
As of now we do not have the ability to travel to another solar system in a human lifetime and the technology to do so doesn't even seem possible. No hints at near light speed travel, let alone faster than light.
It's absolutely possible to travel to another star system in a human lifetime. (BTW, there's no such thing as "another solar system": there is only one Solar system, and that's our own. It's called that because our star is called "Sol", hence "Solar". Other systems are "star systems".)
The tech doesn't exist now, but it could with antimatter propulsion. Basically, you just need to create a large spacecraft which can accelerate continuously at 1g. Then, you point the craft to Alpha Centauri and accelerate at 1g for half the distance, then spin around and decelerate at 1g for the second half. With 1g acceleration, you don't need artificial gravity. And the trip should take less 4 years from what I read here:
The occupants of the trip will actually achieve apparent faster-than-light travel! (Alpha Centauri is almost 5ly distant.) Relativistic dilation at work. Of course, the problem is the huge amount of energy needed. But if they could achieve 0.1g acceleration, it's much less and the trip is still only 13 years; for 0.01g, it's 41 years, still within a human lifetime though a bit much. But that might even be possible with nuclear propulsion.
So, in summary, it's absolutely possible to travel to other star systems within a human lifetime, as far as physics is concerned. However, building antimatter drives and obtaining enough antimatter fuel for the trip seems pretty impractical, and also unlikely that anyone will want to expend the resources to do that. But if you accept much lower acceleration, and combine that with cryogenic technology ("suspended animation") so that people don't need to age during the trip, it might be doable. But it'd be a one-way trip most likely, since everyone the passengers knew on Earth would be dead when they got back, unless of course we eliminate aging.
>BTW, there's no such thing as "another solar system": there is only one Solar system, and that's our own. It's called that because our star is called "Sol", hence "Solar". Other systems are "star systems".)
>Basically, you just need to create a large spacecraft which can accelerate continuously at 1g. Then, you point the craft to Alpha Centauri and accelerate at 1g for half the distance, then spin around and decelerate at 1g for the second half. With 1g acceleration, you don't need artificial gravity. And the trip should take less 4 years from what I read here:
You would need a colossal amount of energy to maintain that acceleration. I would believe 8 years, but the system is already 4 light years away.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_System
From Wikipedia: "This article is about the Sun and its planetary system. For other similar systems, see Star system and Planetary system."
>You would need a colossal amount of energy to maintain that acceleration. I would believe 8 years, but the system is already 4 light years away.
And your belief is wrong. I already gave you a reference. The trip takes less than the distance in light-speed. A trip to the center of the galaxy at even 0.1g acceleration takes far, far less than the lightyear distance, in ship-time.
There might be no need for faster-than-light travel because time passes very slowly for near-lightspeed travellers. They just can't expect to see their friends again once they return.
For the foreseeable future that's is going to look like a permanently sustainable space colony that just happens to be travelling towards another system. Given the timescales involved.
The issue is that it takes a ridiculous amount of energy to transport even 1kg of matter from one solar system to another in a reasonable amount of time.
We're more likely to upload our minds and run them on a small and energy efficient computing substrate.
After seeding a new solar system with appropriate infrastructure, we can then just transmit ourselves from place to place.
> With lower budgets and less aversion to risk, private companies are also more likely than public agencies to suffer disasters in space.
I disagree very much. Throwing bureaucracy and money at problems does not decrease risk. NASA has killed several astronauts: Challenger (bad internal processes and "go-fever"), Columbia (bad technical concept and design), and Apollo 1. Then there are those near-misses with Apollo 13 and Gemini 8 [1], which could have easily resulted in the loss of the crew.
Money and bureaucracy also don't protect from stupid mistakes, as seen in the Mars Climate Orbiter case (output data in wrong units) [2].
Private companies also have a strong incentive to minimize risk to human life, due to all the bad PR and losses in revenue that brings.
Everything in your comment is belied by the evidence. Yes, NASA's attention to detail certainly does reduce the risk involved, and there have been numerous HN articles about its software processes, such as:
> NASA's attention to detail certainly does reduce the risk involved
Bureaucracy and several layers of subcontractors is not the same as "attention to detail". You can easily have the latter while avoiding the former; I'd even argue that bureaucracy is dangerous in this context, since it maximizes ass-covering and minimizes personal responsibility. Personal responsibility is still the best way to ensure attention to detail.
> There's no evidence of that whatsoever. OSHA, for example, has vastly reduced workplace fatalities and injuries.
My statement was in the context of human space flight. When an astronaut dies during a mission, that will have a massive impact on the company's reputation, unlike some construction site accident. OSHA does not apply to space flight missions.
Compare commercial airplanes: Whenever a plane crashes, you'll be sure to hear about it and which airline it belonged to.
Private and public enterprises don't use the same definition of risk. For a public body, risk is measured in political capital. how their failures and successes may influence how they are treated by governments. A private enterprise measures risk according to the likelihood of turning a profit on a venture. While there is certainly an overlap, such as SpaceX having PR/lobbiests or NASA launching commercial sats, they are two fundamentally different approaches to risk.
A dangerous situations occur when either uses the wrong model. When governments try to turn profits, they may cut something that the perhaps shouldn't (Flint). And when private enterprise spends like a government, ignores the bottom line, they are ripped apart by irate shareholders. It's apples and oranges.
NASA has sent over 600 people into space not to mention orbit or the moon and killed around 17 along the way. Private companies have sent about 10 people into space and killed 2(?). Given the choice, I'd rather go to space with NASA.
That's just not enough data for either side. And the 2 you refer to were test pilots flying an experimental aircraft -- a dangerous profession in the non-space aviation world as well.
17 out of ~600 isn't really something to brag about.
And we have another good example of private companies in commercial airspace avoiding crashes as much as possible. By all means, risk is not zero, but look how far we have come in 60 years.
But that's simply a part of how we tend to this sort of thing, private actors with a public watchdog.
I'm under the very strong impression that works better than a public actor with a public watchdog, we've seen too many examples of common mode failure (politics), the most recent notorious one being Flint's water system. (And as noted by others, private actors have marketplace feedback.)
Bureaucracies also change, and seldom for the better absent extreme pressures like fighting a war. If the same NASA with the "Can't Do" attitude demonstrated between the Columbia's launch and death were running the Apollo program, they would have also killed the Apollo 13 crew.
Well arguably in every NASA case, there were private contractors proposing astronomical (pun intended) chances of catastrophic errors, whereas internal NASA estimates were always expecting far, far greater chance of such error. So there was always this go, go, go mentality.
So you can ding NASA for bad choices, which is fair, but there's a private business component in all of that too. It's a public-private venture, space.
We couldn't even detect a planet larger than neptune inspite of having hubble telescope. I am vary of such articles which just collect positive instances and blow the trumpet.
I'm a complete newbie about space travel so when the article says it takes decades to reach planets like Mercury, I went searching for the fastest way we can/could travel today.
From the Wikipedia article about the Solar Probe+, it seems the spacecraft should achieve 200km/s as it passes by the Sun. At that speed, a trip to Mercury (57.91 million km) would take 80 hours?
Could someone with more knowledge about space travel weight in on the difficulties of achieving this and/or any glaring mistakes I have made in my assumptions and calculations?
To clarify, I'm interested in how fast we should ship super advanced robots to these planets. So things like human survival while it passes by the Sun aren't important in this case (I think? Is melting a huge problem for shipping robots that way?).
You don't go direct, and the target is also moving. But the main limitation is "delta V", or the effective speed change you can achieve with a particular quantity of fuel.
The Mariner 10 trip did it in 5 months, which is reasonable. The article doesn't mention Mercury at all. A minimum-fuel trip to Mars is estimated at 3 years, I believe.
Wikipedia:
> Another reason why so few missions have targeted Mercury is that it is very difficult to obtain a satellite orbit around the planet on account of its proximity to the Sun, which causes the Sun’s gravitational field to pull on any satellite that would be set into Mercury's orbit. Furthermore, spacecraft naturally accelerate as they approach the greater gravitational pull of the Sun, but must slow down for orbit insertion, so this entails considerable fuel requirements. This is different with superior planets beyond Earth’s orbit where the satellite works against the pull of the Sun. Therefore, reaching an orbit around Mercury requires especially expensive rocketry. Mercury's lack of an atmosphere poses further challenges because it precludes aerobraking or the use of a parachute type device.[3] Thus a landing mission would have even more demanding fuel requirements.
> From the Wikipedia article about the Solar Probe+, it seems the spacecraft should achieve 200km/s as it passes by the Sun. At that speed, a trip to Mercury (57.91 million km) would take 80 hours?
If you read the Wikipedia article more closely (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_Probe_Plus) you'll note that it takes seven flybys of Venus over the course of six years to get into that orbit, and the resulting orbit has an 88 day period.
Plus, if you want to do anything more than whiz past Mercury, you need to bleed off that 200km/s speed to orbital velocity, which takes an enormous amount of fuel.
The speed as it is passing by the sun is the highest that it will reach in its route (the closest part of its elliptical orbit around the sun) You couldn't change that momentum to be going in the right direction (Towards mercury's gravitational influence, which is small compared to the sun) or slow it down enough to orbit mercury after it gets there without expending a crazy amount of fuel. So you could do it for a flyby, but trying to land something on the surface wouldn't work.
The other problem is since 200km/s is the fastest speed, you have to get to that point at the normal one.
Yes, the moment Earth and Mercury are the closest is when the Sun, Mercury and Earth are aligned, so going from Earth to Mercury at this moment is heading towards the Sun, but then gravity from the Sun will be too strong to be able to stop at Mercury.
Although the other explanations in this thread are correct, I fear an analogy might be better.
Yes, you can reach mercury quite quickly, but in order to land on it (or get captured into its orbit) you need to match its speed and its direction of travel. (speed and direction together are velocity, remember).
It's like I'm a stuntman jumping from one car to another on the freeway. If one car is going 60mph and one is going 20 mph it's going to end badly.
You'll start with a certain velocity on earth, and end up with a target velocity when you reach your destination. That's the delta-v. The type of rocket and how much propellant you have determine the delta-v.
Once you've made your rocket burn, you just have to wait until your paths cross. So, that's why it can take a long time for these missions. That's why people always talk about a journey time of 235 days to mars.
This is not the only possible way to do it though, it just uses the least fuel. If you're willing to use a lot more fuel, you can speed things up significantly, but generally we don't do that.
Your calculations are pretty much meaningless. Orbital mechanics is not that simple.
Here's the path we actually used to send an orbiter to Mercury. Interestingly, it did a bit of solar sailing to make some fine adjustments to its trajectory by angling its sun shield.
More direct transfers are possible, but they require more dV on the spacecraft, and the rocket equation means increasing dV increases the ratio of fuel mass to craft mass exponentially.
There's no mention of exploring Europa or Enceladus. I think sending probes there will have far more important consequences than sending orbiters to Uranus.
When she says "In the 2020s, we’ll launch our next robotic missions to Jupiter; they’ll arrive and do science in the 2030s, and will hopefully persist for a decade or so.", she's referring to the upcoming Europa mission.
To be totally honest, it's hard to feel any enthusiasm for future space travel/exploration when it seems like a real question as to whether or not civilization will still be around in one hundred years. Climate change is such a huge problem that it dwarfs other scientific concerns. That being said, I suppose there's a chance that space exploration could drive technological innovations that could help on that front.
> That being said, I suppose there's a chance that space exploration could drive technological innovations that could help on that front.
I'd say there is more than a chance, the amount of technology that was produced during the "space-race" is incredible - I personally think that an emphasis on space exploration would continue that advancement.
If we're talking 100 years, my money's still on some kind of field propulsion. Here's why:
Take any 100-year period of time over the last few centuries. It's not just that folks in one period of time would not understand the activities of the next period, they wouldn't even understand the concepts involved So horseback folks really didn't grok riverboat steam power at all. Same goes for railroads. Or aviation.
That leads me to believe that what's up next is something we currently think impossible or silly. "Field propulsion" is a nice moniker for that, whatever in reality it turns out to be.
Im a bit of a contrarian in this area. I know Ray Kurtzweil thinks we advanced as much in tge last 14 years as the previous 100, but thats tosh. What amazing new technologies have we developed even since the 70s? Silicon chips? Genetic enginering? Rocketry? Solar power? Nuclear power? All those are baby boomer technologies. What advances from the last 30 years even come close to those? I think the truth is we discovered most of the exploitable physics in the mid 20th century and from now on it will be mainly iterative improvement.
> Which means it’s likely that the first humans on Mars will not have been sent there by NASA or ESA.
Yes I agree that's likely but for very different reasons from what is said in the article:
"Since the retirement of the US Space Shuttle in 2011, only Russia and China have maintained human spaceflight capability with the Soyuz program and Shenzhou program."[1]
Completely agree. We probably need more than 20 years to build and test the infrastructure and logistics to send someone to Mars (little things like the actual vehicle to get there is barely more than a pile of concept drawings). And that's assuming we don't continue our history of changing NASA priorities completely every couple of years. Maybe in 100 years.
Here's what I wish we'd do in space in the next 100 years:
- Make industrial-scale self-reproducing robots, and send them to an asteroid.
- Build more robots out of that asteroid, send robots to next nearest asteroid.
- Build a ringworld out of asteroid and robot parts.
The great thing about space being so enormously big, is that .. once you get off Earth .. you've got so much of it to play with. Send some of these robots to the rings of Saturn, get as much water together as possible, take your fish-tank and get on with it ..
We're not even close to being able to make self-reproducing robots.
Even a simple robot requires a huge supply chain. Take, say, the photoresists used in chip manufacture -- that's an entire chemical industry that you need to box up. That little industry has a bunch of needs on its own. Okay, box those up, too. Repeat. Now let's do insulation for wires . . . or batteries.
It takes a lot more than a village to make a robot, it pretty much takes a country. Probably several, given how suitable raw materials are so inconveniently spread around (and often, hard to find, so I guess we need to add some kind of prospecting facility now).
Short of general-purpose nano-assemblers, which are likely to remain science fiction for quite some time, you'll not put a self-reproducing robot into a probe-sized package any time soon.
The thing is that the first tens of thousands of "self-reproducing robots" do not have to be entirely self-reproducing.
If you can produce 99% of a robot's mass from materials available in space (on the moon or some asteroid), with 1% of the mass consisting of the most complex ingredients provided by Earth (such as the chips you mentioned), you can effectively launch 100x the number of robots from earth at the same cost.
Once you have a couple of thousand relatively flexible robots, you can start to get serious about building specialized labs producing more complex ingredients in space, and then scale up from there.
Even then the task is ridiculously complex, and it seems unlikely that the economics of it would work either[1], but it can nevertheless be much simpler than you make it sound. In any case, we should try to get there because any significant step towards this goal will also make life on earth more robust.
[1] E.g. in the example of chips, good luck getting the masks for advanced designs, let alone all the implicit know-how that goes into a modern fab.
A very important point. Machines which can self-replicate from naturally occurring raw materials pose some daunting engineering challenges.
However, consider how much of our current approach to designing spacefaring robots and their subsystems is influenced by the materials and economic climate we have available here on earth. We deal with severe tradeoffs guided by making robots as lightweight as possible, as reliable as possible (because one failed servo is extremely expensive to replace once you're on mars) and use highly modular components which are well-suited to an expansive global supply chain. What do you design differently when heavy metals are relatively plentiful, weight is mostly irrelevant, scrapping a failed robot is more acceptable and organic substances are scarce? If the parts of the robot are made almost entirely using additive manufacturing processes and circuitry is integrated into the structure you can reduce or remove the need for fasteners and possibly do without conventional insulated sheathing, etc.
The path to self-replication is to reconsider and reinvent a technology stack which minimizes the set of dependencies, and that is a very interesting challenge.
It's hard to project 30 years out. Ask Charles Stross (he's written near-future SF, and -- I'm probably misrepresenting him -- has said he's abandoned story lines because technology caught up with his predictions). Predicting 100 years is pretty much impossible.
But absent "nanotech" or "micro-mechanical biotech" or some similar game-changing advance, self-replicating machines will need to incorporate self-replication of so much of their technology base that they will basically look like factories. Now, there's nothing wrong with a self-replicating factory, but it's not portable and cuddly, and you can't stick it on a rocket and launch it (not in one piece, anyway).
Stross (who is active on HN) explores the subject of abandoning stories in some detail on his blog, e.g. regarding the Halting State series [1]. He also describes here how political uncertainty can kill a story; in this case uncertainty regarding the outcome of the 2014 Scottish Independence vote. Halting State books 1 and 2 are set in a near-future independent Scotland, but were written well before the vote happened. Regarding Halting State 3, he said (2013) "In just two years the map of the Scottish near future will have changed, unpredictably and drastically, from where it is now. I therefore conclude that there is simply no point in my starting to write..."
[EDIT: added quote, made it clear that it was the third book in a sequence that was canned]
It sounds like he set his story too near in the future. Set your story 25-50 years into the future and then you can make reasonable predictions and avoid political things ruining them, for the most part (until a couple of decades have passed). Scottish independence could still happen, just not in the next couple of years. But in 30 years, it's possible. That far out, the state of the entire EU is in serious doubt.
Look at 2001: A Space Odyssey for example. In 1969, it looked like a fairly reasonable prediction of what things would be like in 2001 (42 years away), given the rate of change at the time in aerospace technology. By 1974, it still didn't look too bad. It didn't start looking overly optimistic until probably the late 80s, 20 years later.
Also, if Stross is one of those writers who makes multi-book story arcs spanning over a decade (like Herbert did with the Dune series), that's a sure recipe for total failure when doing near-term sci-fi. Stuff just changes too fast; Herbert's stuff worked sorta-Ok because Dune was set 8000 years in the future (IIRC), but even there one big premise was the idea of genetic memories, which were postulated when he started, but eventually disproven with greater knowledge of genetics, probably before he finished his last book.
This is stuff like Blade Runner worked well: it was a singular story, set about 35 years into the future. At the time, it looked like a somewhat reasonable depiction of 35 years in the future, though rather grim. Of course, now it's almost 2017 and things don't look anything like that, so it's interesting to watch from a historical perspective. It is a little disturbing that they now want to milk it with a sequel after all this time, when obviously things aren't going to look anything like that in 1 year, but I guess I can ignore it like I ignore the Matrix sequels.
I'm not sure we do. Space fabrication is a business we've only just started in. We've done IKEA-in-space to make the ISS, and we're just about at the stage of growing veg on it. We've experimented with sintering of lunar dust on earth. That's really about it. We've not manufactured so much as a bolt in actual space, let alone built the IC fabrication infrastructure that would be required for robots.
Yeah I think we need replicators, self-sealing stem bolts, programmable shape shifting materials, etc. I like the imagination that movies like Outland instilled, but realistically putting a full blown mining and smelt operation onto another world, even the moon? If we have a cable car all the way to moon, OK, but rockets?
The funny part about Outland is that it assumed men in the future doing offworld mining would all sport 70s hairstyles and smoke like chimneys. Go watch it again and look at the scene where they're having a meeting: the smoke is so thick in the conference room you can barely see anyone!
Of course, that movie had some other really serious problems: it seemed to assume that there was artificial gravity, but that it only worked inside the station, and stopped at the roof (so when a guy is walking around inside a tunnel, he's at Earth-normal gravity, but when another guy is making an ambush for him on the outside roof of this tunnel, he's in microgravity).
Please provide an explanation of what form "self-reproducing robots" would take based on the "tech we've got" in a way that applies to the context you've provided.
Locate richest mineral resource in near-Earth neighborhood. Apply rockets. Build new rockets.
I know, it is 'just a fantasy', but .. y'know .. it was once 'just a fantasy' that we'd all have Internet terminals glued to our heads, and look how fast we got that one, once the will-power was there ..
I hope that there will be a major breakthrough in propulsion in the next 100 years. With current technology there are pretty hard limits to what can be done in space.
The biggest breakthrough might not be in technology, but in policy.
Nuclear propulsion has offered high-Isp and high-thrust together in the same engine since the 60s[1], but for various reasons it hasn't flown. With the right safety precautions, public perception, legal changes, and luck, this could be the "breakthrough" you're looking for.
Using species known to survive outside Earth’s atmosphere like the Tardigrades, especially given their size, for space based efforts might be worth considering.
Off the cuff, using water bears as biobots and space-seeds might be of use, but just doing any research relate to using them in space to me is worth looking into; NASA has already done some research. Generally speaking, right now their our best bet to transfer life out of the solar system.
No it'd be a revolution. An ion thruster with comparable performance to chemical rockets would be revolutionary and is by no means a logical extension of any technology.
Ion thrusters aren't comparable to common chemical engines and they don't need to be. They can't offer same high acceleration (to enable escaping the planet gravitation for instance). What they can offer however is very long operation and constant acceleration (even if not high). What it means that when in outer space you can accelerate the spacecraft to huge speeds over long time, which you can't do with regular fuel, simply because you quickly run out of it. It's not a revolutionary idea by any means (at least not anymore) - it is pretty well known.
Most science fiction assumes that humans will survive long duration space travel through chemical induced sleep, waking up only when they are about to reach the destination.
Is it just science fiction or do we have someone working aggressively on this.
But as far as I know you still age while in a coma. So while you may be in a unconscious sleep - it won't do you any good for long term space travel. Then you might as well be awake and look at the scenery along the way.
I guess the bigger problem is that you'd almost certainly need a staff of medical personnel to monitor and manage the sleeping people (whether they're in a medical coma, held at a low temperature to slow everything, etc.) and you're back to the same problem of how they cope with the time and distance.
Can't find any definitive pages but a quick search indicates you're correct - plus there are many disadvantages to being in a long-term coma. Which are avoided by waking up every 3 months but then I guess you're not really avoiding the aging there...
With the biology education I've had I don't think true cryosleep will ever be truly realistic. Closest we could likely get is genetic modification allowing for slowed cellular metabolism or allowing cells to enter a dormant state in some way, similar to what we see in some bacteria. Even that might be fanciful imagination but it feels like a more promising approach to me.
There's the field of cryonics, aimed at preserving people who can't be helped by contemporary medicine, in hopes that the future technology will be able to save their lives. While the goal is slightly different, it seems to be pretty much the same research that's needed for space travel cryopreservation.
There's at least one very big difference: the equipment for reactivating the frozen tissue, which modern cryonics does not even attempt to create, needs to be put on the spaceship at launch. Otherwise, even if perfectly preserved tissue arrives at its destination in a few centuries, it will just remain in that state until power runs down or something breaks.
It's pretty far out. Currently we can't even freeze and thaw organs. As that would be quite useful for transplantation, there are people working on it. Depending on how you define "aggressive", this might not be aggressive though.
Private companies have a long record of killing their employees and causing huge amounts of environmental damage, as long as they think it will be profitable and that they won't suffer awful repercussions.
Your references only show that 100 years ago, safety and human lives were held in lower value than today – companies and government institutions alike were more inclined to accept fatalities back then.
Your first reference is pretty useless, since it doesn't show fatalities in relation to total man-hours worked. If anything, it would indicate that companies have become less inclined to accept human deaths!
The first link doesn't provide separate numbers for comparing public and private mines, so doesn't really prove anything; mining could just be inherently dangerous. The second link doesn't mention any instances of private employers killing their employees.
The question adwn was talking about is not how many people will die? but will private companies kill more people than public companies?
logicchains is suggesting that "private mining companies kill lots of people" says more about dangerous versus safe industries, than it does about private versus public companies.
The context was that government is better than private companies in not murdering, that article is a bad example because government was killing too. I think the chance that some entity is ethically better, than moral of its time, is the same for public and private persons.
No, the context is that you completely misrepresented a wikipedia article and historical events to exactly reverse the facts for ideological reason then apparently flagged the post that pointed it out.
And, by the way, thereby doubly proved the pejorative used previously was very much the right one.
Yeah, child labor laws were instituted for a reason: business will exploit anyone they are permitted to exploit. There's a long history of both labor laws and unions, trying to balance out the blood from a turnip mentality a business will try to get away with, again if permitted.
That's actually not why child labor laws were enacted. They were usually enacted at the behest of highly mechanized companies which required less labor, and preferred adult labor (, this is especially well-documented in England). Thus the highly mechanized companies put their less-mechanized competitors at a disadvantage by getting these laws enacted. In other places such as Prussia, child labor laws were enacted as a sort of stimulus/wealth transfer program.
We must remember that depriving families of income doesn't help them; it is not as if children are sent to work to further enrich their wealthy parents. If you want to help poor children who have to work, please give them money and opportunities, and do not deprive them of the best of their (poor set of) options.
Child labor was a classic 'bootleggers and baptists' scenario where well-intentioned activists were empowered by self-interested parties to achieve economic gain. Much like how prohibition was maintained by selfish bootleggers and teetotaling baptists, child labor laws were enacted by a mix of self-interested industrialists, city-centric unions, and well-intentioned wealthy activists.
>">We must remember that depriving families of income doesn't help them
I believe similar arguments were made in favour of slavery. That didn't work out so well either.
The best way to not deprive families of income is to... not deprive families of income."
I am not an expert on slavery, but I don't think the main problem was parents having their children work to earn money for the household... and I'm not sure how you could interpret my point as being one in favor of slavery.
>">The best way to not deprive families of income is to... not deprive families of income.
It's an unusual world view that suggests that not working their children to death somehow gets in the way of this."
If you want to free children from dreadful toil and danger, you should do so by helping them and their families (through charity, and by personally helping them), rather than by restricting them to further poverty. Saying someone can't have a job doesn't make them rich, and being self-righteous about it doesn't help either.
In the U.S. what finally ended child labor was that adults were out of work during the great depression. Child labor was made illegal so adults could finally get jobs because child wages simply cost companies less. So yes it absolutely was about exploitation. The dreadful working conditions for children were also true and that got the non-industrial elite behind the effort to make it illegal.
Voluntary charity has not solved the problem of poverty. That's old Ayn Rand nonsense, and she was wrong about a great many things. In the end, she cashed her Social Security checks. And good for her, she was entitled to them.
It's becoming fashionable on the right to deny the "veil of ignorance" and instead embrace inheritance of class as if it's a genetic trait. I sometimes wonder if the right pines for the great old days of primogeniture too. For now, it still takes a sovereign to get some people who have enough marbles to share their toys so others can live.
The U.S. adopted all kinds of laws in the Great Depression, including laws against overtime work and pay. Most of these laws were targeted at Keynesian stimulus and creating jobs, and few had anything to do with ethics or morality (though these latter concerns may have played supporting roles).
I am not a Randian, but there is nothing wrong with taking benefits from a system which had (in her view) wronged her. If I steal some things you need, then offer you some of them back, acceptance of my offer is not tantamount to forgiveness, and does not condone or justify my behaviour.
I am no Rawlsian, and the 'veil of ignorance' assumes that everyone would agree if only they were not self-interested; the only problem with this is that it's not true. There is much more variance of moral belief within each class/gender/nationality/race than across them.
My vision of how it could be in [N=no_fucking_clue] decades: Completely unmanned from the beginning (just like mining on earth nearly already is), with a large-scale base on the moon. It starts with mining on the moon that is processed on the moon and shipped to the earth and the infrastructure is set up so that [M] decades later it would be the hub for inerplanetary mining operations as well.
Get building Mr. Musk!