If I recall my specifics properly, there is no intention to replace the shuttle. During the Bush administration, an assessment of NASA's strategic goals, and how to most effectively realize those goals was conducted. If I recall correctly — don't quote me — the fallout included shifting away from reusable craft for most missions, as disposable rockets were more cost-effective; separate payload and crew for most near earth missions, as crew launch is much more expensive and difficult than simple cargo missions; shifting away from an emphasis on manned missions, there being advantages for both near earth and deep space missions, including safety, cost and feasibility (deep space), and general technological complexity. I may have missed a few, as I haven't read on it in a while.

Anyway, space travel is only one way to extend the usable lifespan of our extended biosphere, and eventually all strategies will fail, though perhaps not for a long time. I'm told there are potential technologies for interstellar travel, but most result in one way trips. (And probably the most promising is some form of light speed transmission of the information necessary to construct our mind out of some locally available technology at the other end. For the most part, eventually being a citizen of Earth, for all but maybe a few percent, is going to suck big time. And because of the one-way nature of foreseeable technologies, space travel won't improve their lives except indirectly via basic research in zero-G, advances due to advance of the cosmological sciences and the like. Holding out for moving off-world like the locust-like species in ID4 is probably rather optimistic.)

http://www.nasa.gov/exploration/systems/mpcv/

I suppose the question is will the republicunts let it be built?

Anyone care to talk about the ethical dilemmas involved in generation ships?

(May 17, 2012 at 1:10 am)Annik Wrote: Anyone care to talk about the ethical dilemmas involved in generation ships?

This is something you and I have talked about, of course, but I'm not sure people really think about the ethical aspects of this type of space travel.

I don't think they are ethical. They would doom countless generations to a life that they didn't choose by a world they've never seen all for a mission they'll never complete.

Beyond the technological and ethical issues, off the top of my head, I see no way to raise current human political technology to the same reliability as other systems on such a ship. Revolution, civil war, in-fighting and all the other warts that plague human social systems would likely wreak havoc on its viability. All it takes is one David Koresh, one divisive economic crisis, or a similar issue to doom the entire enterprise. And it's unlikely that such a ship could be made sabotage proof. All it takes is one divisive element, and the ship quickly becomes hostage to whomever is willing to exercise the nuclear option.

---

Quote:They would doom countless generations to a life that they didn't choose by a world they've never seen all for a mission they'll never complete.

Pretty much sums up the life of every peasant farmer and serf with the priests hanging the myth of "heaven" in front of them if they STFU and do what they are told.

(May 17, 2012 at 1:18 am)Hovik Wrote:

(May 17, 2012 at 1:10 am)Annik Wrote: Anyone care to talk about the ethical dilemmas involved in generation ships?

This is something you and I have talked about, of course, but I'm not sure people really think about the ethical aspects of this type of space travel.

I don't think they are ethical. They would doom countless generations to a life that they didn't choose by a world they've never seen all for a mission they'll never complete.

This is the first I've ever heard of this and it's an interesting concept. We do need better forms of space propulsion but we should at least test the waters in our own solar system, so to speak. It's been 43 years since we landed on the moon and we haven't done jack shit since then. It's almost as if we need the threat of a nuclear war to get anything done. Pathetic.

(May 17, 2012 at 1:10 am)Annik Wrote: Anyone care to talk about the ethical dilemmas involved in generation ships?

Such as?

---

(May 17, 2012 at 1:18 am)Hovik Wrote:

(May 17, 2012 at 1:10 am)Annik Wrote: Anyone care to talk about the ethical dilemmas involved in generation ships?

This is something you and I have talked about, of course, but I'm not sure people really think about the ethical aspects of this type of space travel.

I don't think they are ethical. They would doom countless generations to a life that they didn't choose by a world they've never seen all for a mission they'll never complete.

The deepest purpose of ethics is species survival. So whether act essential to species survival can be smoothly undertaken within the ethics system is the measure of the ethical system. The ethical system is not the measure of whether this act should be undertaken. That a act essential to species survival might seem unethical shows the system of ethics is deeply, perhaps fatally, flawed. It means when the foreplay is over, and the chips are down, the system of ethics is found to hinder rather than further its own most fundamental reason for existence.

I had an idea as I was tumbling out of bed this morning. Instead of populating a generation ship with live humans, populate it with either robots, engineered "slave species", cybernetic slave species, or some combination. Then simply put the necessary biological seed material in long term storage. This way, you could simply omit the pesky human psychological element, and the robots and other non-human bio-forms could work in environments that are hazardous to humans both in transit and upon arrival. Once these servant life units created the proper bio-environment, it could be populated with the stored biological materials.

I saw that movie....the Hal 9000 killed everybody.