Is a space ark a workable idea?

[crazyfool319]

TBH, it wouldn't be a bad thing if the human species did go extinct. We have nothing to offer the rest of the universe. Even if such a thing did exist, it would be a situation where only the very rich or powerful would be given space.

And those very rich are gonna get food how exactly? They are gonna make grow their own crops? Slaughter their own livestock? Stitch their own clothes?

[IIamaKing]

TBH, it wouldn't be a bad thing if the human species did go extinct. We have nothing to offer the rest of the universe. Even if such a thing did exist, it would be a situation where only the very rich or powerful would be given space.

So much edge, you are SO cool. luls /s

[Independent voter]

I read somewhere that the fasting thing humans ever built would take over 60,000 years to reach the next star. That's a long time to for people on one generational ship.

How much fuel would a massive generational ship have to carry to reach even that speed? How much to fuel would it have to carry to stop? Will that fuel still be good after 60,000 years?

[IIamaKing]

Such original posts. And then you wonder why I think the way I do

1 too many bong rips and intro to Philosophy 101?

[Powerogue]

We're still at the point where it's drastically more feasible to salvage the planet we're currently on. There's simply no sign of another place we could inhabit within traveling distance, even with sci-fi technology. Completely altering the landscape of another planet might be possible, but it would take millennia and, again, drastically longer and harder than salvaging what we have.

[Kokolums]

The human race might also have to be genetically re-engineered for space travel as well. The biggest danger is no gravity and space radiation ruining our biological functions. There may be no fix for that outside of redesigning the human body.

[PC2]

There's nothing theoretically impossible about a space ark, but the idea that it's less risky to be on a space ark rather than Earth is nonsense. Bad things can happen in both places.

[Shadowferal]

Oh there are returns. The returns are in the form of the survival of the human race in the event the Earth is destroyed or uninhabitable. That has value to people. Once you are a billionaire, you just do life for titles. "Savior of the human race by way of creating a space ark" is a good title billionaires would chase.

Rhetoric doesn't pay out dividends.

[Kokolums]

Imagine we launch a generational ship on a 60,000 year journey. 500 years after the launch, we develop space warp, making the generational ship useless. Do we rescue the people on the generational ship?

[The Stormbringer]

More specifically, we DO have the technology required for a generation ship. The cost to build it is just in the hundreds of trillions of dollars. On the low end. You're basically having to create a flying city, with enough hydroponic farmland to supply those people with food and O2, AND find a way to boost it to a significant fraction of light speed, so the journey only takes centuries.

The engine's the hardest part, and between ion engines and solar sails, we're basically there I think.

The REAL problem with the endeavour is that wherever we end up is probably lifeless rocks we'd have to terraform. And if we can manage that, we've got plenty of planets and planetoids right here that we should focus on first. Even if we build the ark and leave it in orbit as an enormous station, that makes more sense than actually sending it anywhere, right now.

And also protection against radiation and stellar debris, don't forget that.

It'd probably be easiest to just start terraforming Mars and build several space stations that people can survive in during the interim.

- - - Updated - - -

If we only have 100 years, we probably won't make it. The first planet we colonize would likely be Mars. The steps to Mars colonization would be:

1. Scout several sites on Mars for water.
2. If water is found, plan a base there.
3. Spend years sending lots of Mars missions filled with nothing but redundant supplies a Mars base might need. Everything from MREs to probably 50 extra power generators and 50 extras of just about everything.
4. Once you have supermassive redundancy in place, then the first manned mission arrives.
5. If anything goes wrong and we cannot send a resupply mission for years, the mission team can survive on the vast amount of supplies we sent.

I don't know if any of this is politically palatable, because the cost of setting up reasonable backups and redundancies would dwarf lifting every American out of poverty and there would be intense pressure to help people here on Earth first for that price.

I think you'd be surprised. The main cost isn't the redundancies and whatnot, it's the transport. If we can come up with cheaper methods of getting things into space (SpaceX rockets, space elevator, etc.) then the cost drops dramatically. Alternatively would be setting up swarms of robotic asteroid miners and floating space factories that can produce the things Mars would need.

[Kokolums]

Passengers on a generational ship would expect 1 of 2 outcomes:

1. If they actually make it to their destination, the the human race went extinct everywhere else.
2. If the human race does not go extinct, in 60,000 years it will develop amazing technology to the point where they will be rescued before reaching their destination.

[PC2]

And also pr
It'd probably be easiest to just start terraforming Mars and build several space stations that people can survive in during the interim.

If the tech is invented to terraform Mars, why wouldn't we just terraform Earth to however we want it?

[Shadowferal]

Everyone is always full of "great" ideas, but no way to pay for them.

[Kokolums]

What if there is a revolution on the ship at some point in its 60,000 year journey. The new leaders establish a dictatorship and declare themselves free of Earth and deliberately sabotage all contact with Earth purposefully to show their loyalty to the new cause. Could happen. You'd have to secretly plan a fleet of probes to trail and monitor the generational ship without the crew knowing, so they can continue to report to Earth. On the other hand, you could get the same revolution on Earth and they will demand a loyalty oath from the ship. The ship couldn't break contact because the probes would act as spies for the dictatorship.

Fun mental exercise lol.

[Noomz]

The counter argument is that life isn’t that great for a large portion of people. The best way to combat global warming is to remove 75% of the human population. This of course is unfeasable in practice, so the next best thing is find away to renew the ozone and reduce the suns exposure to the planet.

No, it isn't. That's the edgelord solution. Population isn't the problem. Resource distribution is. We could EASILY feed this and MORE.

[Low Hanging Fruit]

If we built one now and launched it odds are in a 10000000 years when they get there they will find humans that got there with faster means. Or earth is dead and they are all thats left. Fun stuff either way.

[The Stormbringer]

If the tech is invented to terraform Mars, why wouldn't we just terraform Earth to however we want it?

For extra space...? A new place to live...? To protect us against a meteor or asteroid wiping us out completely with a single unlucky hit? To avoid nuclear war? More resources? Because it would be an incredible undertaking and the sort of thing that would change how society works forever?

[cubby]

If the tech is invented to terraform Mars, why wouldn't we just terraform Earth to however we want it?

Because we'd need more space than Earth has, probably. And having humans on more than one planet is a good idea, in regards to long term safety of our species.

However, you make a good point. At the time that we could effectively terraform Mars for open human habitation (i.e. no space suits) we would already have the tech to fix whatever is wrong with the environment of Earth.

[Gaexion Ramza Beoulve]

At the very least we should shoot genesis pods at random planets to ensure some form of life can spread.

Statistically speaking...if the universe is barren...we could give our brand of bacteria/flora/fauna a head start and then terraform whatever evolves when we finally have the means to reach those planets.

Worst case scenario we get wiped out but a new form of carbon-based life emerges in a few million years.

[Joathen]

Imagine we launch a generational ship on a 60,000 year journey. 500 years after the launch, we develop space warp, making the generational ship useless. Do we rescue the people on the generational ship?

This is actually a central plot point of the Coyote series of novels by Allen Steele. A Fascist American cryo-ship gets hijacked by patriots and after a year on their new planet another ship arrives despite being built and leaving decades after the first- at that point America had fallen and the world was ruled by "Social Collectivist".

Great read. OT: Watched the entirety of The 100 recently and it'd be interesting to see if we could slap something together similar to the The Ark in that show- just a mishmash of space stations docked and linked together.