From: Charles D Hixson (charleshixsn@earthlink.net)
Date: Sat Nov 17 2001 - 12:59:21 MST
On Friday 16 November 2001 02:45, you wrote:
> The article has so many problems its almost not worth responding
> to.
>
> However lets take the basic assertion that it 1.5x10^26 J of
> energy for interstellar travel.
>
> The sun's power output is 3.8 x 10^26 J / sec.
>
> So you have to present an argument that the civilization would
> not want to expend a few seconds worth of energy to colonize
> a nearby starsystem.
>
> It is far more likely that colonization is frowned upon
> because colonies are likely to be competitors than
> colonization is prohibitively expensive.
>
> Robert
This is probably almost irrelevant. Eventually (assuming no
collapse) there will be both space habitats and fusion power.
Some of these will be more adventurous and, for one reason or
another (unpopular beliefs? fleeing control of a central
government?) some of them will head for the Oort cloud. Once
there, there is little reason to do more than pause for a
refueling. They are already in deep space. They are already a
generation ship. (The decided that when they left.) As the
distance increases, they may feel like calling back home (better
news? feel safer? ask for advice?) or they may not.
So, as time passes, one should expect any sufficiently dense area
to become populated (and dense doesn't have to mean very dense. It
depends on current technology.)
Then there's the Tippler scenario.
But perhaps if one had lived in a Macrolife dwelling for several
generations, one wouldn't want to land? Or wouldn't be able to?
--
Charles Hixson
Copy software legally, the GNU way!
Use GNU software, and legally make and share copies of software.
See:
http://www.gnu.org
http://www.redhat.com
http://www.linux-mandrake.com
http://www.calderasystems.com
http://www.linuxapps.com
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Nov 02 2002 - 08:12:00 MST