Voyager 1 passed by Saturn in 1980 on my ninth birthday, and my dad had set up TV sets in the house with video he was getting off a satellite feed for my birthday party with a bunch of my friends. We were all very confused as to why he did it, as it wasn't very kid's party like. Only many years later did I get how cool it actually was, and how I will always remember that Voyager event. So... a much belated thanks, dad!
Humanity’s greatest journey so far has only reached the closest world to us: the Moon ... in a universe that stretches endlessly in every direction and is seemingly infinite.
It's kind of wild to think about: we might end up collapsing our own civilization before we ever make it beyond our solar system.
At this point, I suspect the next real explorers won't be us, but probes carrying intelligent machines..our robotic descendants venturing where we can’t.
Unsong is extremely amusing to me for some reason. Something about how Scott comes up with reasonably sounding similarities and manages to make those relate to an overall story.
It's already true because implied precision and comparing continuous measurements for equality and all that. It's both pedantic and meaningless to say it's true on (all of) Nov 13 2026 but not true today.
It was more like assimilating everything it encountered in minute detail, but the living beings were no longer "living" as such once assimilated. It was creepy.
My understanding is that ISS is not self-sustaining even in principle. It consistently needs to be resupplied with water and breathable air as the station continuously leaks it. These resupplies happen about once every month or two. This article goes into quite a few details about what would be needed for actual self-sustainable human space exploration and it looks like there's quite a few engineering challenges to work out.
I once watched one of those videos that was a speeded up example of light leaving the sun and showing the time it takes to get to the various planets. It was boring as hell after just a couple of minutes and that's with light way speeded up. My conclusion is that "light is too damn slow."
There are lots of hypotheses, but this is one of my gut feelings for why there are no aliens in view. It's hard to escape your local solar system.
When will we need more resources than exist here? We'll be mining the sun to run future simulations. Do we need more compute? Seems like we'll just stay inside.
Most life is probably similarly bound up to their origin. That and life is hard by many, many, many hard steps. Earth life is nearly 30% the age of the universe and it took us this long to get here.
It'd be near impossible for aquatic life to have an industrial revolution without aqueous chemistry control. Can't do that when you're stuck inside water. It's also hard to evolve reasoning when you can't see far ahead. Little evolutionary pressure on reasoning over time and distance.
And it's hard to leave water. You need to evolve new eyes and lungs to live on land. And then you need an energy source like O2, which tends not to stick around.
So many reasons.
The distances of space are certainly one holding us back now.
> Of course we are, but my question is why is that notable?
> You also breathe a nitrogen-oxygen-hydrogen mixture, and have a body that is built to walk around at 1g on a planet between 0-100 degrees F.
> That doesn’t seem to bother people.
Humans like to explore. We've populated the globe from our starting position in East Africa.
When we look to the skies, beyond our own galaxy, and into the early history of the universe, we are seeing a world that will never get to explore first-hand. Humans like to explore.
I mean we have a way today to get to a fraction of light speed with the nuclear bombs for propulsion method. Technically it’s even survivable for a person.
Elite Dangerous is a modern sci-fi space simulation game. It takes place in the 34th century. You can actually visit solar system (can't land on Earth yet), and catch up with two Voyagers. They are where they would be in 1200 years, approximately 25 light days away from the Sun.
I remember as a kid seeing the first photos of Uranus and Neptune from the Voyager probes. What's sad to me is they remain to this day the only time we've ever visited these ice giants. There have been a number of proposals over the years but none have been selected and it seems like 2045-2050 is the soonest we could get to Uranus (more for Neptune) but that pretty much requires a launch by 2034 and we've pretty much run out of time for a mission to be selected to that window given that it would be a complex and expensive flagship mission. I guess it depends on whether it's a flyby (like New Horizons) or an intercept mission, which would take substantially longer.
Obital mechanics are a funny thing however. You see this with the complicated BepiColombo trajectory to Mercury [1] that requires multiple passes on Venus. Mercury orbits at ~48km/s (compared to Earth's 30km/s). Fun fact: the escape velocity of the Sun is 42km/s so it's easier to leave the Solar System than intercept Mercury.
One difficulty is there aren't large gas giants to slingshot or brake around.
Uranus's orbital velocity is ~6.8km/s so it's both really far and requires a ton of delta-V to slow down to intercept.
Anyway, I digress.
So Voyager 1's speed seems to be ~17km/s, I guess relative to the Sun. People talk about the time required for interplanetary (let alone interstellar) travel but we can do much better than this with relatively near-future technology.
We need a whole bunch more Earth-orbit space infrastructure and industry to do anything, really. Lower launch costs in particular. I think this future is orbital rings [2]. This would revolutionize getting stuff into orbit but also launching vehicles to other planets. Basically you accelerate on the inside of the ring at ~2G with magnetic levitation to counter the linear momentum. You can reasonably get ~15km/s with this, adding to the EArth's 30km/s ideally so even without fuel you can get to ~45km/s.
It's expected never to encounter any other object in all eternity. Unless of course someone deliberately aims for it. I heard once it will eventually lose it's form entirely and just drift through space as a melted lump of metal. For some reason that reminds me of Red Dwarf.
We are going to lose it before long i wonder if it will be possible to find it on a future date in theory.
I doubt that’s true. At minimum it’s going to hit an enormous quantity of micrometer sized objects.
It’s gravitationally bound to the Milky way so it’s going to keep wandering into and out of star systems for a very long time. We’re talking a large multiple of the age of the universe meanwhile plenty of space rocks show encounters with other space rocks on a vastly smaller timescale. If nothing else it’s got decent odds of being part of the star formation process. Stars are ~10% of the milky way’s mass and star formation is going to continue for a while.
Supposing that it does become part of a new star, and some "nearby" civilization had sufficiently precise instruments...would that be a detectable anomaly? Like some atoms of Plutonium still haven't decayed, and isn't that weird that Plutonium's spectral signature is present in this new star? Or is that just something that happens because some plutonium is created in a supernova and might just have been floating around anyway.
> I heard once it will eventually lose it's form entirely
It will be sitting at something like -450F. Could it really lose form!? Is the idea that all the phonons could converge to one point, shifting an atom of metal (which will happen infinitely with infinite time)? Maybe with random photons/hydrogen/whatever "continuously" adding energy?
From what I recall, one of the hazards of long term space travel is that nearly any material will start sublimating atoms in the hard vacuum of space, with things like cosmic rays adding to the woes. Some over time it will start deteriorating.
Not sure about “melting” into an amorphous mass, I guess in theory the probes gravity could do that, but I would imagine even the tiniest force would disturb that and dissipate it.
One issue is that over long enough timeframes, even atoms that we consider stable will decay - particularly ones that are heavier than iron, which will decay towards iron or nickel. That decay will eventually compromise the structure of the probes.
> It's expected never to encounter any other object in all eternity.
This is read as "near zero" rather than "no chance". "Expected" is a word of uncertainty.
I think the rough napkin math would be: take the volume that the probe will sweep through and multiply it by the volume of matter in the universe/volume of the universe.
Voyager 1 passed by Saturn in 1980 on my ninth birthday, and my dad had set up TV sets in the house with video he was getting off a satellite feed for my birthday party with a bunch of my friends. We were all very confused as to why he did it, as it wasn't very kid's party like. Only many years later did I get how cool it actually was, and how I will always remember that Voyager event. So... a much belated thanks, dad!
Humanity’s greatest journey so far has only reached the closest world to us: the Moon ... in a universe that stretches endlessly in every direction and is seemingly infinite.
It's kind of wild to think about: we might end up collapsing our own civilization before we ever make it beyond our solar system.
At this point, I suspect the next real explorers won't be us, but probes carrying intelligent machines..our robotic descendants venturing where we can’t.
"we might end up collapsing our own civilization before we ever make it beyond our solar system."
Given what I see in the past 15 years, I don't particularly see that as a problem, honestly.
Lol
That's when it collides with the skybox, like the sailboat at the end of The Truman Show.
Or like Apollo 8 in the incredibly funny book Unsong.
Unsong is extremely amusing to me for some reason. Something about how Scott comes up with reasonably sounding similarities and manages to make those relate to an overall story.
Supplied headline will be true in 1 year. Actual headline:
thanks, title is updated.
It's already true because implied precision and comparing continuous measurements for equality and all that. It's both pedantic and meaningless to say it's true on (all of) Nov 13 2026 but not true today.
Who remembers the Star Trek movie where one of the voyagers came back as v’ger - the humongous sentient entity of accumulated space junk?
> Who remembers the Star Trek movie where one of the voyagers came back as v’ger - the humongous sentient entity of accumulated space junk?
Everyone.
I watched it the first time around in a cinema in West Germany. That was a British cinema in Deutchland - a BFBS jobbie.
Times have changed somewhat!
It was more like assimilating everything it encountered in minute detail, but the living beings were no longer "living" as such once assimilated. It was creepy.
We are trapped in the solar system.
Yeah, pretty much:
> It will take about 300 years for Voyager 1 to reach the inner edge of the Oort Cloud and possibly about 30,000 years to fly beyond it.
For the next 300-500 years, yes. But there is plenty of things to do, stuff to build and room to expand within a light-day from Sun.
No other place is habitable within a light day of the sun.
A good argument for making sure our planet stays habitable. Caring about the environment isn't just for hippies anymore!
Works up until the earth becomes uninhabitable in 600M years, before then humans are going to need to find and colonize a different planet.
ISS is one such place.
My understanding is that ISS is not self-sustaining even in principle. It consistently needs to be resupplied with water and breathable air as the station continuously leaks it. These resupplies happen about once every month or two. This article goes into quite a few details about what would be needed for actual self-sustainable human space exploration and it looks like there's quite a few engineering challenges to work out.
https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/space-technologies/arti...
I once watched one of those videos that was a speeded up example of light leaving the sun and showing the time it takes to get to the various planets. It was boring as hell after just a couple of minutes and that's with light way speeded up. My conclusion is that "light is too damn slow."
The sky is big!
until next "General Relativity" is discovered, and maybe we can get both voyagers back.
Sandboxed. Yep.
There are lots of hypotheses, but this is one of my gut feelings for why there are no aliens in view. It's hard to escape your local solar system.
When will we need more resources than exist here? We'll be mining the sun to run future simulations. Do we need more compute? Seems like we'll just stay inside.
Most life is probably similarly bound up to their origin. That and life is hard by many, many, many hard steps. Earth life is nearly 30% the age of the universe and it took us this long to get here.
It'd be near impossible for aquatic life to have an industrial revolution without aqueous chemistry control. Can't do that when you're stuck inside water. It's also hard to evolve reasoning when you can't see far ahead. Little evolutionary pressure on reasoning over time and distance.
And it's hard to leave water. You need to evolve new eyes and lungs to live on land. And then you need an energy source like O2, which tends not to stick around.
So many reasons.
The distances of space are certainly one holding us back now.
Of course we are, but my question is why is that notable?
You also breathe a nitrogen-oxygen-hydrogen mixture, and have a body that is built to walk around at 1g on a planet between 0-100 degrees F.
That doesn’t seem to bother people.
> Of course we are, but my question is why is that notable?
> You also breathe a nitrogen-oxygen-hydrogen mixture, and have a body that is built to walk around at 1g on a planet between 0-100 degrees F.
> That doesn’t seem to bother people.
Humans like to explore. We've populated the globe from our starting position in East Africa.
When we look to the skies, beyond our own galaxy, and into the early history of the universe, we are seeing a world that will never get to explore first-hand. Humans like to explore.
I mean we have a way today to get to a fraction of light speed with the nuclear bombs for propulsion method. Technically it’s even survivable for a person.
Elite Dangerous is a modern sci-fi space simulation game. It takes place in the 34th century. You can actually visit solar system (can't land on Earth yet), and catch up with two Voyagers. They are where they would be in 1200 years, approximately 25 light days away from the Sun.
I remember as a kid seeing the first photos of Uranus and Neptune from the Voyager probes. What's sad to me is they remain to this day the only time we've ever visited these ice giants. There have been a number of proposals over the years but none have been selected and it seems like 2045-2050 is the soonest we could get to Uranus (more for Neptune) but that pretty much requires a launch by 2034 and we've pretty much run out of time for a mission to be selected to that window given that it would be a complex and expensive flagship mission. I guess it depends on whether it's a flyby (like New Horizons) or an intercept mission, which would take substantially longer.
Obital mechanics are a funny thing however. You see this with the complicated BepiColombo trajectory to Mercury [1] that requires multiple passes on Venus. Mercury orbits at ~48km/s (compared to Earth's 30km/s). Fun fact: the escape velocity of the Sun is 42km/s so it's easier to leave the Solar System than intercept Mercury.
One difficulty is there aren't large gas giants to slingshot or brake around.
Uranus's orbital velocity is ~6.8km/s so it's both really far and requires a ton of delta-V to slow down to intercept.
Anyway, I digress.
So Voyager 1's speed seems to be ~17km/s, I guess relative to the Sun. People talk about the time required for interplanetary (let alone interstellar) travel but we can do much better than this with relatively near-future technology.
We need a whole bunch more Earth-orbit space infrastructure and industry to do anything, really. Lower launch costs in particular. I think this future is orbital rings [2]. This would revolutionize getting stuff into orbit but also launching vehicles to other planets. Basically you accelerate on the inside of the ring at ~2G with magnetic levitation to counter the linear momentum. You can reasonably get ~15km/s with this, adding to the EArth's 30km/s ideally so even without fuel you can get to ~45km/s.
[1]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BK3F4fmqtbA
[2]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LMbI6sk-62E
Despite all our rage we are still just rats in a solar system cage.
It's expected never to encounter any other object in all eternity. Unless of course someone deliberately aims for it. I heard once it will eventually lose it's form entirely and just drift through space as a melted lump of metal. For some reason that reminds me of Red Dwarf.
We are going to lose it before long i wonder if it will be possible to find it on a future date in theory.
I doubt that’s true. At minimum it’s going to hit an enormous quantity of micrometer sized objects.
It’s gravitationally bound to the Milky way so it’s going to keep wandering into and out of star systems for a very long time. We’re talking a large multiple of the age of the universe meanwhile plenty of space rocks show encounters with other space rocks on a vastly smaller timescale. If nothing else it’s got decent odds of being part of the star formation process. Stars are ~10% of the milky way’s mass and star formation is going to continue for a while.
Supposing that it does become part of a new star, and some "nearby" civilization had sufficiently precise instruments...would that be a detectable anomaly? Like some atoms of Plutonium still haven't decayed, and isn't that weird that Plutonium's spectral signature is present in this new star? Or is that just something that happens because some plutonium is created in a supernova and might just have been floating around anyway.
Quite. It will hit the occasional something, eventually. If nothing else it will be mildly bathed in radiation of some sort.
It's going to hit gas that will slowly but inexorably sputter it to nothing.
Its gonna prove the closed manifold hypothesis when it shows up coming from the opposite direction in a few hundred million years
> I heard once it will eventually lose it's form entirely
It will be sitting at something like -450F. Could it really lose form!? Is the idea that all the phonons could converge to one point, shifting an atom of metal (which will happen infinitely with infinite time)? Maybe with random photons/hydrogen/whatever "continuously" adding energy?
Neat.
From what I recall, one of the hazards of long term space travel is that nearly any material will start sublimating atoms in the hard vacuum of space, with things like cosmic rays adding to the woes. Some over time it will start deteriorating.
Not sure about “melting” into an amorphous mass, I guess in theory the probes gravity could do that, but I would imagine even the tiniest force would disturb that and dissipate it.
One issue is that over long enough timeframes, even atoms that we consider stable will decay - particularly ones that are heavier than iron, which will decay towards iron or nickel. That decay will eventually compromise the structure of the probes.
Ah, so this is how asteroids are made!
No chance of it ever being hit by anything?
> It's expected never to encounter any other object in all eternity.
This is read as "near zero" rather than "no chance". "Expected" is a word of uncertainty.
I think the rough napkin math would be: take the volume that the probe will sweep through and multiply it by the volume of matter in the universe/volume of the universe.
Space is well named.
It's cold out there, why would it melt?
It's got a very long time to do so. Like how a bowl of water evaporates at room temperature.
Heat ray from a passing flying saucer?
Radiation?