[HN Gopher] Are We Multiplanetary Yet?
       ___________________________________________________________________
        
       Are We Multiplanetary Yet?
        
       Author : da-x
       Score  : 18 points
       Date   : 2025-01-05 09:33 UTC (13 hours ago)
        
 (HTM) web link (arewemultiplanetaryyet.com)
 (TXT) w3m dump (arewemultiplanetaryyet.com)
        
       | bjourne wrote:
       | But on the bright side, we may not stay uniplanetary either!
        
         | da-x wrote:
         | Multiplanetary is easy, multistellar will be a whole different
         | game
        
           | alganet wrote:
           | I think he's talking about the very real possibility of
           | humans ending up spreading to -1 planets.
        
             | da-x wrote:
             | I really thought he was talking about relocating mankind to
             | asteroids and orbital stations
        
           | coldtea wrote:
           | Even two-planetary wont be happening anytime soon.
           | 
           | And zero-planetary (extinction) is quite likely as well...
        
       | moomin wrote:
       | We're still trying to figure out the propulsion side of the
       | problem, which frankly is the Asylum Demon of colonising another
       | planet.
        
         | ricksunny wrote:
         | We're not prepared to countenance two things:
         | 
         | 1) That some form of propellantless propulsion may in fact be
         | 'a thing'.
         | 
         | 2) That exotic propulsion technologies may be 'born secret' by
         | default -- even if you or I invented them -- because of their
         | national security implications (can be formed into an ICBM
         | platforn). There would be no publicly-referenceable
         | classification list informing you of this, because that is not
         | how it works and would defeat the purpose. Our best precedent
         | on this is in fact the Manhattan Project. Living then we would
         | not know that isotope fission methods were restricted data,
         | even while speculation could be bandied about in amateurish
         | publications (cit. Alex Wellerstein's excellent blog
         | https://blog.nuclearsecrecy.com/2014/03/07/death-dust-1941/ )
         | Moreover, we would see those few scientists who were actually
         | pursuing relevant study under government auspices actively
         | misrepresenting (i.e. lying) to the press. cit. Urey on heavy
         | water:
         | 
         | "...it got Harold Urey, the guy who discovered heavy water, to
         | write a letter to the editor saying I don't have any clue what
         | this is about. There is certainly no way to use this in war,
         | which is a total lie."
         | 
         | https://ahf.nuclearmuseum.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/06/Ful...
        
           | throw5959 wrote:
           | Today's world is too transparent and connected. I can open
           | the web page of an university where a bunch of PhDs research
           | this and send them an email. There are legions of nerds that
           | would immediately spot any inconsistency and make a total
           | online outrage out of it.
        
             | ricksunny wrote:
             | 1) You do not necessarily have the email address of a
             | government scientist working on a black project. 2) And if
             | you do, the Urey example cited demonstrates that they are
             | fully empowered to lie to you about the importance of a
             | research line of interest.
        
               | throw5959 wrote:
               | You don't need it. You find someone else out of the
               | thousands of people working un that field across the
               | globe.
        
           | skissane wrote:
           | The whole idea of a "born secret" novel propulsion technology
           | seems unlikely to me. You need to start with basic research
           | showing such a technology is possible in principle-and nobody
           | would make that classified because it is way too remote from
           | practical application. If you did, all that would happen is
           | someone else would discover the same thing sooner or later,
           | publish it openly, and then your own researchers would be
           | demoralised about being denied credit for their own
           | breakthroughs.
           | 
           | And then it is a very long and hard slog to get from basic
           | research to something practically usable. Even if at some
           | point you start classifying it, other teams can follow the
           | same path openly in parallel.
           | 
           | Something is unlikely to be "born secret" unless it is
           | developed in a government lab like LANL or LLNL. Are those
           | kinds of labs even working on spacecraft propulsion? And even
           | if they are, are they likely to be getting ahead of open
           | research (academic, private sector, non-classified government
           | labs)? Being classified can actually slow research down, by
           | adding bureaucratic red tape and removing opportunities for
           | collaboration and getting more eyeballs on a problem.
           | 
           | This sounds more like something out of fiction than reality.
           | 
           | The Manhattan Project was different because it was during a
           | World War.
        
       | chrsw wrote:
       | What counts as multiplanetary? Landing as small group of people
       | on Mars who don't last very long probably doesn't meet the
       | criteria.
        
       | slimebot80 wrote:
       | Are we brainwashed yet? Absolutely.
        
       ___________________________________________________________________
       (page generated 2025-01-05 23:01 UTC)