Well, there are other considerations.
AI powered mission to span thousands of years----
from
https://boingboing.net/2026/02/05/the-fantasy-of-starships-is-no-more- realistic-than-magic.html
The fantasy of starships is no more realistic than magic
Ellsworth Toohey-a 1:16 pm Thu Feb 5, 2026
Cover for-a Cover for "Tiger, Tiger" by Alfred Bester
Interstellar travel rCo the kind in Star Trek, Star Wars, Dune rCo will never happen. The fantasy "exists on the exact same level of
plausibility as wizards," argues Jason Pargin, author of John Dies at
the End. Not because science lacks imagination, but because the
distances involved are so absurd that no amount of future technology
could overcome them without literally breaking the laws of physics.
Proxima Centauri, the nearest star, is 4.25 light-years away rCo a 50 trillion-mile round trip. Getting to Mars is already a borderline
impossible 3-year, half-trillion-dollar ordeal that we've spent decades
just talking about. Getting to Proxima Centauri would be like doing the
Mars trip 170,000 times in a row. At current spacecraft speeds, it would take 500,000 years.
Even in the "hopelessly optimistic scenario" of traveling at one-tenth
the speed of light rCo thousands of times faster than anything we know how to build rCo a grain of sand hitting the hull would detonate with nuclear force. The trip would still take 80+ years, requiring a ship that's essentially a self-contained civilization with enough redundancy to
survive every conceivable disaster, powered by more energy than humanity
has ever produced.
As for the sci-fi workarounds? "Suspended animation" is just asking us
to invent immortality. "Generation ships" would mean imprisoning people
in space without their consent rCo children born on the ship would live
and die having never seen a tree, a lake, or any human being outside
their floating prison. "We can make this work if we just solve literally
all of the flaws in human psychology, morality and socialization,"
Pargin writes.
His real frustration is that this fantasy was sold to us as humanity's purpose. "If it depresses you to imagine humans still confined to Earth 1,000 years from now, it's your imagination that has gone wrong because
that is, inarguably, the best case scenario."
Previously:
rCo Author Jason Pargin on the 2000-era website that accidentally
destroyed the world
rCo Not quite jumping to hyperspace, but Star Wars-esque spacecraft propulsion isn't all sci-fi
from https://boingboing.net/2026/02/05/the-fantasy-of-starships-is-no-more-realistic-than-magic.html
The fantasy of starships is no more realistic than magic
Ellsworth Toohey 1:16 pm Thu Feb 5, 2026
Cover for Cover for "Tiger, Tiger" by Alfred Bester
Interstellar travel rCo the kind in Star Trek, Star Wars, Dune rCo will never happen.
The fantasy "exists on the exact same level of
plausibility as wizards," argues Jason Pargin, author of John Dies at
the End. [...]
The square root of -1 is an interesting parallel.
It has no apparent existence in our 3D Cartesian coordinates, yet its math describes an "imaginary" orthogonal 4th dimension of AC energy
in capacitance and inductance exquisitely well.That this works has to do with Euler's formula:
a425couple wrote:
from
https://boingboing.net/2026/02/05/the-fantasy-of-starships-is-no-more-realistic-than-magic.html
The fantasy of starships is no more realistic than magic
Ellsworth Toohey 1:16 pm Thu Feb 5, 2026
Cover for Cover for "Tiger, Tiger" by Alfred Bester
Interstellar travel rCo the kind in Star Trek, Star Wars, Dune rCo will
never happen.
They said that of supersonic flight before, too.
On 9/02/2026 10:14 am, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
a425couple wrote:
from
https://boingboing.net/2026/02/05/the-fantasy-of-starships-is-no-more-realistic-than-magic.html
The fantasy of starships is no more realistic than magic
Ellsworth Toohey 1:16 pm Thu Feb 5, 2026
Cover for Cover for "Tiger, Tiger" by Alfred Bester
Interstellar travel rCo the kind in Star Trek, Star Wars, Dune rCo will
never happen.
They said that of supersonic flight before, too.
That was on planet earth. It's not unusual for planet inhabitants to
invent many different means of transport on their planet. Once you get
off earth forget it, humans ain't going anywhere. If you want to see
that happen keep reading sci fi and dreaming.
Whisper wrote:
On 9/02/2026 10:14 am, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
a425couple wrote:
from
https://boingboing.net/2026/02/05/the-fantasy-of-starships-is-no-more-realistic-than-magic.html
The fantasy of starships is no more realistic than magic
Ellsworth Toohey 1:16 pm Thu Feb 5, 2026
Cover for Cover for "Tiger, Tiger" by Alfred Bester
Interstellar travel rCo the kind in Star Trek, Star Wars, Dune rCo will >>>> never happen.
They said that of supersonic flight before, too.
That was on planet earth. It's not unusual for planet inhabitants to
invent many different means of transport on their planet. Once you get
off earth forget it, humans ain't going anywhere. If you want to see
that happen keep reading sci fi and dreaming.
As I just indicated, similar bold predictions have been made before. (Some of them are legends, though, misinterpretations and false attributions.[0])
If history teaches us anything, it is that sooner or later they are shown to be wrong. For example, just 156 years ago, Jules Verne wrote stories that are considered science-fiction today, about things and technologies that
were thought to be inconceivable at the time of writing:
* in "De la Terre |a la Lune" (1865) ["From the Earth to the Moon" (1868)],
he described humans traveling to the Moon;
* in "Autour de la Lune" (1869/1870) ["Around the Moon" (1872)],
he described humans traveling around the Moon in a capsule;
* in "Vingt Mille Lieues sous les mers" (1869rCo70) ["Twenty Thousand Leagues
Under the Seas" (1871)] he described humans traveling in a submarine,
and about giant creatures that would live there.
Yet, today there is nothing fictional about submarines; and just a few days ago the observation of a live giant jellyfish during a deep-sea exploration was in the news.[1]
People have not only been going to and around the Moon, and returned (since Apollo 8, 1968) but walked and drove on it (since Apollo 11, 1969); and they are going to do so again.[2] Rockets are now launched into outer space on a daily basis; there are (unfortunately for astronomers) more than 10'000 artificial satellites (mostly Starlink satellites) in orbit. And they can land safely now to be reused, too -- something that until that became a reality was only shown in (cheap) science-fiction films.
I find it an interesting historical coincidence that Verne's ideas became true almost exactly 100 years after he formulated them.
I guess that you will not live to see your claim being shown wrong. Unfortunately, probably neither will I.
It is clear that you do not know what you are talking about, and ISTM that you do not want to know either: That you are just an ignorant, someone with
a closed mind who is attacking that which you do not understand or do not have enough imagination to conceive. And you are a pseudonymous Usenet troll, too.
[0] <https://www.computerworld.com/article/1563853/the-640k-quote-won-t-go-away-but-did-gates-really-say-it.html>
[1] <https://www.nytimes.com/2026/02/05/science/giant-phantom-jellyfish-sighting-video.html>
[2] <https://www.planetary.org/space-missions/artemis>
On 10/02/2026 6:53 am, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
It is clear that you do not know what you are talking about, and ISTM that >> you do not want to know either: That you are just an ignorant, someone with >> a closed mind who is attacking that which you do not understand or do not
have enough imagination to conceive. And you are a pseudonymous Usenet
troll, too.
[0]
<https://www.computerworld.com/article/1563853/the-640k-quote-won-t-go-away-but-did-gates-really-say-it.html>
[1]
<https://www.nytimes.com/2026/02/05/science/giant-phantom-jellyfish-sighting-video.html>
[2] <https://www.planetary.org/space-missions/artemis>
As a wise man once said, a man's gotta know his limitations. Not
everything you can think up in sci fi fantasy can actually happen. We
will never get close to reaching another star system.
I 100% agree. It's great to see some sensible discussion in this ng
instead of the usual sci fi nonsense.
Thus, no one in 1965 foresaw everyone having a battery powered, wirelessly >networked, cool, quiet and inexpensive computer in their pocket. Because
it was physically impossible!
100 years ago:-a The Fantasy Of Going To The Moon!
200 years ago:-a The Fantasy Of Flying!-a-a-a The Fantasy Of Wireless Communication!-a-a The Fantasy Of Traveling Faster Than A Mile Per Minute (60 MPH)!
500 years ago:-a The Fantasy That The Earth Is Not The Center Of The Universe!
1000 years ago:-a The Fantasy Of Sailing Around The Earth!
And so on.
The only Fantasy here is people like you who presume to Know All The Answers.-a-a "This will never happen because I say so!"
It turns out that "never" is a very long time.-a One era's fantasy is a later era's reality.-a-a In 1965 (1) a computer could not fit into a 2 car garage and (2) cost a million dollars in 1965 money and (3) was horribly noisy from all of the fans and air conditioning running in the room.
Thus, no one in 1965 foresaw everyone having a battery powered,
wirelessly networked, cool, quiet and inexpensive computer in their pocket.-a Because it was physically impossible!
But here we are.-a BTW, the phone in my pocket is 10,000 times more
powerful than a 1965 mainframe.
The more we learn, the more we are capable of doing.-a Don't fall into
the "We already know all there is to know" trap.
All a big yawn and pedestrian as it doesn't include humans leaving theLet me correct your statement :
earth and living on another planet.-a That will never happen.-a The best
we can hope for is a temporary base on the moon to accomodate short
stays.-a We are tethered to earth and that will never change, no matter
how creative our sci fi writers become.
Not because "I say so', but because I have a functioning brain that
discerns sci fi from reality.
I doubt we know 1% of what's out there - brain isn't built to comprehend
it.
Humans will never colonize another planet within our solar system, and certainly will never reach another star system.
Thus, no one in 1965 foresaw everyone having a battery powered, wirelessly >networked, cool, quiet and inexpensive computer in their pocket. Because
it was physically impossible!
On 13/02/2026 10:02 am, Nick Charles wrote:
100 years ago:-a The Fantasy Of Going To The Moon!
200 years ago:-a The Fantasy Of Flying!-a-a-a The Fantasy Of Wireless
Communication!-a-a The Fantasy Of Traveling Faster Than A Mile Per
Minute (60 MPH)!
500 years ago:-a The Fantasy That The Earth Is Not The Center Of The
Universe!
1000 years ago:-a The Fantasy Of Sailing Around The Earth!
And so on.
All a big yawn and pedestrian as it doesn't include humans leaving the
earth and living on another planet.-a That will never happen.-a The best
we can hope for is a temporary base on the moon to accomodate short
stays.-a We are tethered to earth and that will never change, no matter
how creative our sci fi writers become.
On Sun, 8 Feb 2026 19:42:05 +1100, Whisper <whisper@ozemail.com.au>
wrote:
I 100% agree. It's great to see some sensible discussion in this ng
instead of the usual sci fi nonsense.
Oh, my. Where do you think scientists GET their wild ideas of things
to invent? Case in point: lots of research is going into things like
FTL and matter-energy transferal from watching Star Trek! Don't go
dissin' the Sci-Fi guys, they come up with some great ideas! :)
On Sun, 8 Feb 2026 19:42:05 +1100, Whisper <whisper@ozemail.com.au>
wrote:
I 100% agree. It's great to see some sensible discussion in this ng
instead of the usual sci fi nonsense.
Oh, my. Where do you think scientists GET their wild ideas of things
to invent? Case in point: lots of research is going into things like
FTL and matter-energy transferal from watching Star Trek! Don't go
dissin' the Sci-Fi guys, they come up with some great ideas! :)
On 2/11/26 16:42, Steve Silverwood [KB6OJS] wrote:
On Sun, 8 Feb 2026 19:42:05 +1100, Whisper <whisper@ozemail.com.au>
wrote:
I 100% agree. It's great to see some sensible discussion in this ng
instead of the usual sci fi nonsense.
Oh, my. Where do you think scientists GET their wild ideas of things
to invent? Case in point: lots of research is going into things like
FTL and matter-energy transferal from watching Star Trek! Don't go
dissin' the Sci-Fi guys, they come up with some great ideas! :)
Welcome Steve. I am glad you have chosen to join us posting.
Yes, Whisper refuses to accept that writers of science fiction
are often very knowledgeable. They often write of good ideas.
Where would we be without the world wide communications
possible by geosynchronous satellites?
Arthur C. Clarke first wrote about geosynchronous satellites in
a technical paper titled "Extra-Terrestrial Relays u Can Rocket Stations >Give Worldwide Radio Coverage?," published in the October 1945 issue of >Wireless World. He proposed using three satellites in a 36,000 km
equatorial orbit to provide global communication coverage.
Key details about this landmark publication include:
Concept: Clarke described how artificial satellites could act as relay >stations for radio and television, remaining in a fixed position
relative to the Earth's surface.
The "Clarke Orbit": Due to this pioneering work, the geostationary orbit
is now often referred to as the Clarke Orbit or the Clarke Belt.
Initial Conception: While often cited as 1945, the concept was actually >outlined earlier in a memo privately circulated among the British >Interplanetary Society in May 1945.
Realization: While the idea was groundbreaking, the first satellite in >geostationary orbit, Syncom 2, was not launched until 1963.
The fantasy of starships is no more realistic than magic
Ellsworth Toohey 1:16 pm Thu Feb 5, 2026
Cover for Cover for "Tiger, Tiger" by Alfred Bester
Interstellar travel rCo the kind in Star Trek, Star Wars, Dune rCo will
never happen. The fantasy "exists on the exact same level of
plausibility as wizards," argues Jason Pargin, author of John Dies at
the End. Not because science lacks imagination, but because the
distances involved are so absurd that no amount of future technology
could overcome them without literally breaking the laws of physics.
We have ISS.
Can we expand ISS into a huge space-ship or star-ship?
Only time will tell.
I believe human being will try to build it but not on the ground,
possibly at Lagrange points.
Building a huge space-ship that can both land and fly to space indeed
sounds impossible, right now.
SpaceX Starship is just the beginning??? :)
Mr. Man-wai Chang wrote:
We have ISS.
Yes.
Can we expand ISS into a huge space-ship or star-ship?
No.
Only time will tell.
The ISS is going to be deorbited, i.e. destroyed, soon :'-(
I believe human being will try to build it but not on the ground,
Yes, that would make little sense. Like a too large radio telescope, the ship will be crushed under its own weight while still in construction.
possibly at Lagrange points.
Unlikely. Being at a Lagrange point does not mean that you do not need thrusters to stay there (at least L1 and L2). Also, the Lagrange points of
a system can be very far away from each body (L1 and L2 of Sol--Terra, where solar observatories and e.g. the JWST are orbiting, respectively, are 1.5 million km away from Terra). Standard orbits are much less expensive in terms of fuel, both maintaining them and getting there and back.
Building a huge space-ship that can both land and fly to space indeed
sounds impossible, right now.
I doubt that this is a feasible design to begin with. Even in Star Trek the only *starship* class that could land on a terrestrial planet was the most modern class, the Intrepid class represented on screen by the U.S.S.
Voyager; for landing on planets they usually use(d) relatively small shuttlecraft that were carried along by a starship, and the transporter beam (crash landings aside, of course).
SpaceX Starship is just the beginning??? :)
Correct.
F'up2 alt.astronomy
Building a huge space-ship that can both land and fly to space indeed
sounds impossible, right now. SpaceX Starship is just the beginning??? :)
Le 2026-02-24 |a 09:53, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn a |-crit-a:
Mr. Man-wai Chang wrote:
possibly at Lagrange points.
Unlikely. Being at a Lagrange point does not mean that you do not need
thrusters to stay there (at least L1 and L2). Also, the Lagrange points of >> a system can be very far away from each body (L1 and L2 of Sol--Terra, where >> solar observatories and e.g. the JWST are orbiting, respectively, are 1.5
million km away from Terra). Standard orbits are much less expensive in
terms of fuel, both maintaining them and getting there and back.
The L4 and L5 Lagrange points are pretty stable,
but they are located at 1AU from us, at 60-# in front and behind the Earth, forming equilateral triangle with the Earth and the Sun.
That means that any communication will incur an 8 minutes delay, one
way, 16 minutes both way.
As a wise man once said, a man's gotta know his limitations. Not
everything you can think up in sci fi fantasy can actually happen. We
will never get close to reaching another star system.
Welcome Steve. I am glad you have chosen to join us posting.
On Tue, 10 Feb 2026 18:44:24 +1100, Whisper <whisper@ozemail.com.au>
wrote:
As a wise man once said, a man's gotta know his limitations. Not
everything you can think up in sci fi fantasy can actually happen. We
will never get close to reaching another star system.
Quoting Clint Eastwood in this topic...? Interesting.
The universe is a surprising thing. Lots of things are possible if
one has the dream.
They're already experimenting with "transporters" (a la Star Trek),
and it's entirely possible in my mind that eventually we'll "conquerOne does not have to "conquer physics" for that, i.e. no new physics is required, and no exotic possibilities of currently known physics (like warp drive, or wormholes kept open by matter with negative energy) have to be realized.
physics" and come up with a practical way to make interplanetary space
travel happen (beyond Earth, obviously, and hopefully beyond the Solar System).
Steve Silverwood [KB6OJS] wrote:
On Tue, 10 Feb 2026 18:44:24 +1100, Whisper <whisper@ozemail.com.au>
wrote:
As a wise man once said, a man's gotta know his limitations. Not
everything you can think up in sci fi fantasy can actually happen. We
will never get close to reaching another star system.
Quoting Clint Eastwood in this topic...? Interesting.
The universe is a surprising thing. Lots of things are possible if
one has the dream.
Imagination is helpful, but not sufficient for progress. There has to be some connection to the real world.
They're already experimenting with "transporters" (a la Star Trek),
"They" are not; that is a common misconception (because of the term used). Quantum teleportation -- which is probably what you are alluding to -- is a far cry from /Star Trek/'s transporters in many ways, including:
1. only single elementary particles have been "teleported";
2. a particle is *duplicated only* with regarding to one its properties
because a particle that already existed at the destination is
given that property;
3. this has only been done with photons (AFAIK), not with stable particles
with non-zero mass (out of which matter consists);
4. the problem of not being able to determine certain properties of
a particle simultaneously exactly ([Heisenberg] uncertainty principle)
remains (in /Star Trek/, the Heisenberg compensators take care of that
}8-)).
<https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Quantum_teleportation&oldid=1345660195>
and it's entirely possible in my mind that eventually we'll "conquerOne does not have to "conquer physics" for that, i.e. no new physics is required, and no exotic possibilities of currently known physics (like warp drive, or wormholes kept open by matter with negative energy) have to be realized.
physics" and come up with a practical way to make interplanetary space
travel happen (beyond Earth, obviously, and hopefully beyond the Solar
System).
As for interstellar travel:
Andy Weir gives a pretty convincing example in his novel "Project Hail
Mary", of which a film adaptation of the same name (co-produced by and starring Ryan Gosling, with Andy Weir advising) was recently released, of
how it could work. (I have not read the novel yet, but I watched the movie; certainly the latter is highly recommended if you are interested in science.)
I have calculated (you can even do that with a scientific desktop calculator if you know the physics/maths and a mathematical trick) that, considering special relativity, it would suffice for a spacecraft to accelerate from relative rest with 9.8 m/s^2 (=~ 1 g_0; would provide artificial
gravitation, too) for ca. 91 standard days to achieve the speed 0.25 c. Cruising at that speed to Proxima Centauri, ca. 4.25 light-years away (for a pass-by, otherwise you have to decelerate for ca. 91 days, too) would take only ca. 17 (Julian) years in the terrestrial rest frame (ca. 16.5 years for the astronauts; so the "time dilation" at that speed is relatively benign, and people will still remember the astronauts should they return the same way).
The main problem for using conventional propulsion is the propulsion system (no spoilers here on how they solve it in the novel/movie; suffice it to say that they still travel at subluminal speeds ;-)). Radiation shielding
(light towards the front is blueshifted; ionizing radiation is harmful/deadly), and deflection/evasion of interstellar dust (at large relative speeds, even a relatively small object like a speck of dust has the same kinetic energy as a hand grenade produces; this problem already exists with space debris in orbit, and asteroid impacts) are other problems that need to be solved.
Steve Silverwood [KB6OJS] wrote:
On Tue, 10 Feb 2026 18:44:24 +1100, Whisper <whisper@ozemail.com.au>
wrote:
As a wise man once said, a man's gotta know his limitations. Not
everything you can think up in sci fi fantasy can actually happen. We
will never get close to reaching another star system.
Quoting Clint Eastwood in this topic...? Interesting.
The universe is a surprising thing. Lots of things are possible if
one has the dream.
Imagination is helpful, but not sufficient for progress. There has to be >some connection to the real world.
They're already experimenting with "transporters" (a la Star Trek),
"They" are not; that is a common misconception (because of the term used). >Quantum teleportation -- which is probably what you are alluding to -- is a >far cry from /Star Trek/'s transporters in many ways, including:
1. only single elementary particles have been "teleported";
2. a particle is *duplicated only* with regarding to one its properties
because a particle that already existed at the destination is
given that property;
3. this has only been done with photons (AFAIK), not with stable particles
with non-zero mass (out of which matter consists);
4. the problem of not being able to determine certain properties of
a particle simultaneously exactly ([Heisenberg] uncertainty principle)
remains (in /Star Trek/, the Heisenberg compensators take care of that
}8-)).
<https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Quantum_teleportation&oldid=1345660195>
and it's entirely possible in my mind that eventually we'll "conquer
physics" and come up with a practical way to make interplanetary space
travel happen (beyond Earth, obviously, and hopefully beyond the Solar
System).
One does not have to "conquer physics" for that, i.e. no new physics is >required, and no exotic possibilities of currently known physics (like warp >drive, or wormholes kept open by matter with negative energy) have to be >realized.
As for interstellar travel:
Andy Weir gives a pretty convincing example in his novel "Project Hail
Mary", of which a film adaptation of the same name (co-produced by and >starring Ryan Gosling, with Andy Weir advising) was recently released, of
how it could work. (I have not read the novel yet, but I watched the movie; >certainly the latter is highly recommended if you are interested in science.)
I have calculated (you can even do that with a scientific desktop calculator >if you know the physics/maths and a mathematical trick) that, considering >special relativity, it would suffice for a spacecraft to accelerate from >relative rest with 9.8 m/s^2 (=~ 1 g_0; would provide artificial
gravitation, too) for ca. 91 standard days to achieve the speed 0.25 c. >Cruising at that speed to Proxima Centauri, ca. 4.25 light-years away (for a >pass-by, otherwise you have to decelerate for ca. 91 days, too) would take >only ca. 17 (Julian) years in the terrestrial rest frame (ca. 16.5 years for >the astronauts; so the "time dilation" at that speed is relatively benign, >and people will still remember the astronauts should they return the same way).
The main problem for using conventional propulsion is the propulsion system >(no spoilers here on how they solve it in the novel/movie; suffice it to say >that they still travel at subluminal speeds ;-)). Radiation shielding
(light towards the front is blueshifted; ionizing radiation is >harmful/deadly), and deflection/evasion of interstellar dust (at large >relative speeds, even a relatively small object like a speck of dust has the >same kinetic energy as a hand grenade produces; this problem already exists >with space debris in orbit, and asteroid impacts) are other problems that >need to be solved.
| Sysop: | Amessyroom |
|---|---|
| Location: | Fayetteville, NC |
| Users: | 65 |
| Nodes: | 6 (0 / 6) |
| Uptime: | 14:13:22 |
| Calls: | 862 |
| Files: | 1,311 |
| D/L today: |
10 files (18,532K bytes) |
| Messages: | 265,525 |