Long term preservation in space?

Started by Desert Fox, November 18, 2023, 07:18:23 AM

Previous topic - Next topic

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

DevoutCatalyst

Quote from: arthwollipot on November 19, 2023, 05:59:09 PM
Quote from: DevoutCatalyst on November 18, 2023, 09:54:13 AMTravel to Mars, do you mean humans? AI robots will replace humans in space. Astronauts will be unemployable and will have to learn to farm and grow endive or something*.

Humans will go to space for the reasons that always seem to be forgotten. Curiosity, and because it's there. No, there's absolutely no compelling reasons for humans to do so, but since when has that stopped any human from doing things that are pointless?

Sounds about right. I think we'll attempt to go to Mars and back and hopefully without much harm to the astronauts. I don't see us repeating that if AI robotics develop in a way that will accomplish far more than fragile humans could ever. It's still human exploration of space when we use machines in place of warm bodies. Most of us wouldn't want to dig the foundation of a skyscraper with hand shovels when we have machinery that does it far better and without needlessly degrading individual human life. I cannot foresee starships a la Star Trek with humans aboard in their present biological configuration ever.

PS: My tax dollars paid for this,


Shibboleth

Even at very cold temperatures I think that things would still change. It would be crazy slow but I would think that the petroleum in the rubber coatings of wires would separate and they would start to dry rot and crack. Same with fluid in the human bodies. It would take a very very long time with anything above absolute zero but stuff would move in the bodies and the bodies would break down. Cohesion, adhesion, and capillary movement would still function in zero gravity.


arthwollipot

Quote from: DevoutCatalyst on November 20, 2023, 08:14:47 AMSounds about right. I think we'll attempt to go to Mars and back and hopefully without much harm to the astronauts...

I don't think there's much chance of that. Space is dangerous, and people have already died doing it. It hasn't stopped us.

Quote from: DevoutCatalyst on November 20, 2023, 08:14:47 AM...I cannot foresee starships a la Star Trek with humans aboard in their present biological configuration ever.

Well that's because Star Trek starships don't function according to the laws of physics as we know them. :grin:
We are living in weird times
dominated by weird people
who talk about weird shit

- Seth Meyers

CarbShark

Quote from: arthwollipot on November 20, 2023, 05:42:02 PM
Quote from: DevoutCatalyst on November 20, 2023, 08:14:47 AMSounds about right. I think we'll attempt to go to Mars and back and hopefully without much harm to the astronauts...

I don't think there's much chance of that. Space is dangerous, and people have already died doing it. It hasn't stopped us.

Quote from: DevoutCatalyst on November 20, 2023, 08:14:47 AM...I cannot foresee starships a la Star Trek with humans aboard in their present biological configuration ever.

Well that's because Star Trek starships don't function according to the laws of physics as we know them. :grin:

More Europeans died discovering and exploring the New World in the 15th and 16th century than have died in the exploration of space in the 20th and 21st centuries.
There are more atoms of hydrogen in a single molecule of water than there are stars in the entire solar system.

Shibboleth

I think that our future is in nano technology where things auto repair, the space ship, the human bodies, etc.

daniel1948

Quote from: CarbShark on November 20, 2023, 08:25:58 PM
Quote from: arthwollipot on November 20, 2023, 05:42:02 PM
Quote from: DevoutCatalyst on November 20, 2023, 08:14:47 AMSounds about right. I think we'll attempt to go to Mars and back and hopefully without much harm to the astronauts...

I don't think there's much chance of that. Space is dangerous, and people have already died doing it. It hasn't stopped us.

Quote from: DevoutCatalyst on November 20, 2023, 08:14:47 AM...I cannot foresee starships a la Star Trek with humans aboard in their present biological configuration ever.

Well that's because Star Trek starships don't function according to the laws of physics as we know them. :grin:

More Europeans died discovering and exploring the New World in the 15th and 16th century than have died in the exploration of space in the 20th and 21st centuries.

It was a LOT less expensive to send a person to sea than it is to put a person into space. And during the age of exploration, the people paying the bills didn't give a rat's ass about the lives of sailors. It was common, when a ship was no longer seaworthy, to insure it to the hilt and send it off with a captain and crew to drown. Cost is the real obstacle to space colonization. Making it just safe enough is obscenely expensive.

Quote from: Shibboleth on November 21, 2023, 09:57:28 AMI think that our future is in nano technology where things auto repair, the space ship, the human bodies, etc.

Auto-repairing nanotechnology is sci-fi. Nanotechnology auto-repairing people is fantasy. The future is ever-more expensive technology, employing ever-more-sophisticated techniques, available to the ultra-wealthy, while simple medical procedures and medicines become less and less available to the poor.
"You say you love your children above all else, and yet you are stealing their future in front of their very eyes."
-- Greta Thunberg

arthwollipot

Quote from: daniel1948 on November 21, 2023, 10:31:23 AMCost is the real obstacle to space colonization. Making it just safe enough is obscenely expensive.

Which is why it is being done by billionaires, who aren't constrained by normal human emotions.
We are living in weird times
dominated by weird people
who talk about weird shit

- Seth Meyers

daniel1948

Quote from: arthwollipot on November 21, 2023, 04:41:20 PM
Quote from: daniel1948 on November 21, 2023, 10:31:23 AMCost is the real obstacle to space colonization. Making it just safe enough is obscenely expensive.

Which is why it is being done by billionaires, who aren't constrained by normal human emotions.

Nobody is doing space colonization. Bezos is trying to start a space tourism business for billionaires, sub-orbital and eventually LEO, and Musk is running a for-profit business taking people and supplies to and from the ISS. Musk talks about colonizing Mars, but what he really wants is for the government to pay him to transport supplies and people. He'll invest his own money in building the capacity, but that's with a view to selling transport services. He won't finance a colony. He expects to make his investment back.
"You say you love your children above all else, and yet you are stealing their future in front of their very eyes."
-- Greta Thunberg

CarbShark

Quote from: daniel1948 on November 21, 2023, 06:29:19 PM
Quote from: arthwollipot on November 21, 2023, 04:41:20 PM
Quote from: daniel1948 on November 21, 2023, 10:31:23 AMCost is the real obstacle to space colonization. Making it just safe enough is obscenely expensive.

Which is why it is being done by billionaires, who aren't constrained by normal human emotions.

Nobody is doing space colonization. Bezos is trying to start a space tourism business for billionaires, sub-orbital and eventually LEO, and Musk is running a for-profit business taking people and supplies to and from the ISS. Musk talks about colonizing Mars, but what he really wants is for the government to pay him to transport supplies and people. He'll invest his own money in building the capacity, but that's with a view to selling transport services. He won't finance a colony. He expects to make his investment back.

I think he expected to make money on Twitter too
There are more atoms of hydrogen in a single molecule of water than there are stars in the entire solar system.

daniel1948

Quote from: CarbShark on November 21, 2023, 07:32:27 PM
Quote from: daniel1948 on November 21, 2023, 06:29:19 PM
Quote from: arthwollipot on November 21, 2023, 04:41:20 PM
Quote from: daniel1948 on November 21, 2023, 10:31:23 AMCost is the real obstacle to space colonization. Making it just safe enough is obscenely expensive.

Which is why it is being done by billionaires, who aren't constrained by normal human emotions.

Nobody is doing space colonization. Bezos is trying to start a space tourism business for billionaires, sub-orbital and eventually LEO, and Musk is running a for-profit business taking people and supplies to and from the ISS. Musk talks about colonizing Mars, but what he really wants is for the government to pay him to transport supplies and people. He'll invest his own money in building the capacity, but that's with a view to selling transport services. He won't finance a colony. He expects to make his investment back.

I think he expected to make money on Twitter too

My point isn't that his scheme will succeed. My point is that he's not going to fund a Mars colony. He's promoting a Mars colony in the hopes that he can sell rocket transportation.
"You say you love your children above all else, and yet you are stealing their future in front of their very eyes."
-- Greta Thunberg

Shibboleth

Quote from: daniel1948 on November 21, 2023, 10:31:23 AMAuto-repairing nanotechnology is sci-fi. Nanotechnology auto-repairing people is fantasy. The future is ever-more expensive technology, employing ever-more-sophisticated techniques, available to the ultra-wealthy, while simple medical procedures and medicines become less and less available to the poor.

My body is auto repairing nano technology. Creating something that will eventually do the same as my body only better can happen. Yes, there is a cost/benefit analysis to everything. I would say that extending people's lives too much is a bad idea due to over-population but I really think that in the next 50 years we will start to see a population crash.

AI and virtual reality will remove the need for many to find relationships and marry. I love my wife and she is my eternal companion but marriage is hard. Having an AI wife that is designed for me would have been very appealing in my youth.

daniel1948

Quote from: Shibboleth on November 22, 2023, 10:06:43 AM
Quote from: daniel1948 on November 21, 2023, 10:31:23 AMAuto-repairing nanotechnology is sci-fi. Nanotechnology auto-repairing people is fantasy. The future is ever-more expensive technology, employing ever-more-sophisticated techniques, available to the ultra-wealthy, while simple medical procedures and medicines become less and less available to the poor.

My body is auto repairing nano technology. Creating something that will eventually do the same as my body only better can happen. Yes, there is a cost/benefit analysis to everything. I would say that extending people's lives too much is a bad idea due to over-population but I really think that in the next 50 years we will start to see a population crash.

AI and virtual reality will remove the need for many to find relationships and marry. I love my wife and she is my eternal companion but marriage is hard. Having an AI wife that is designed for me would have been very appealing in my youth.

The human body is not nano-technology. It is biology. Through biology we have cured many diseases, eliminated a few (or at least one), developed drugs that improve and prolong life, etc. If that's what you mean by nano-technology you are using the word differently than it's normally used.

A lot of people compensate for the lack of a companion with various artificial means, from social media to chat bots to sex dolls. A realistic humanoid sex doll that can carry on any sort of intellectual interaction is unlikely to ever exist, and certainly will not exist within the next hundred years, by which time resource depletion or climate change or global war will have put an end to our technological civilization and nobody will have the means to build a rubber blow-up sex doll, much less a realistic talking one.

Of course, anybody who can afford an automobile can buy a RealDoll (tm) today.
"You say you love your children above all else, and yet you are stealing their future in front of their very eyes."
-- Greta Thunberg

Shibboleth

It is biology but what I am saying is that it isn't impossible to create something microscopic that can repair the human body. My body already has microscopic things that do that... Yes, barring the world blowing up I think that we will create nano technology that will repair the human body and that we will solve aging.

daniel1948

Quote from: Shibboleth on November 30, 2023, 02:59:16 PMIt is biology but what I am saying is that it isn't impossible to create something microscopic that can repair the human body. My body already has microscopic things that do that... Yes, barring the world blowing up I think that we will create nano technology that will repair the human body and that we will solve aging.

We already have medicines that treat specific ailments. I don't believe that we will ever have a generalized medicine or nano-anything that can go in, search out damage, diagnose, and repair it. We will definitely have expert systems (a.k.a. --but not really-- A.I.) that can aid significantly in diagnosing and prescribing. But the human body (any biological organism!) is far too complex and interdependent to be susceptible to an autonomous repair system.

Even if A.G.I. ever actually exists and can replace doctors, it will still need to examine, diagnose, and prescribe specific treatments and/or procedures. A general-purpose nano-bot that can repair anything will never exist.

I don't think we will "solve" aging either. That would require repairing a gazillion little micro-lesions and genetic errors and wear-and-tear that accumulate over a lifetime. Note that your maximum heart rate (subject to individual variations) is 220 minus your age. It is not possible for a healthy 80-year-old to run as fast as a healthy 40-year-old because the 80-year-olds's heart cannot pump as much blood. When I was 40 I could jog 3 miles in around 28 minutes and my heart rate while jogging was close to 150. Now, at 75, I do 45 minutes on the elliptical and my heart rate on a good day gets up to 116 or 120. In 35 years my maximum heart rate (both theoretical, 220-age, and measured in a treadmill stress test) has dropped from 180 to 145. At some point the heart cannot beat fast enough to keep the body alive. You could have an artificial heart but all the other organs are declining at the same time. And even the brain is deteriorating. Aging is an inevitable consequence of biology. At least in organisms more complex than a hydra.

But if we do manage to keep an individual alive past 120 or so it will either be a research subject or a billionaire who can pay the obscenely-high price for dozens of procedures and replacements.

And of course I don't believe that technological civilization, capable of advanced medical science or even mechanized agriculture, will survive another 200 years. My best guess is that the collapse of industry will come within 100 years, due to global warming, resource depletion, or catastrophic war. The Fermi paradox is solved if we set L in the Drake equation to 200 years or so.
"You say you love your children above all else, and yet you are stealing their future in front of their very eyes."
-- Greta Thunberg