Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Strategies & Market Trends : 2026 TeoTwawKi ... 2032 Darkest Interregnum -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: TobagoJack who wrote (136527)	11/4/2017 7:41:02 PM
From: Maurice Winn	1 Recommendation Recommended By 3bar Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 217561

The problem with space travel is that there's nowhere to go. We are already there. Even if there was some reason to send a robot to the nearest star 4 light years away, it would take so long to get there that the robot would be obsolete and the purpose pointless. Even with a fancy fusion-powered ion drive the energy required to really get moving would be huge. Braking at the destination would require the same energy. Once there the robot would report back with latency of 4 years "There seems to be a hydrogen fuelled star with a few planets going round and round. Looks much like the solar system. Shall I set course for the next star?" It's easier to just look at the incoming photons from everywhere to see what's going on. They are arriving constantly with no space travel required. For local space travel garden variety Newtonian mechanics rocketry does a good job at low price. The main space travel needed is asteroid deflection to avoid Earth impact. If we get an incoming km of hurtling rock it will make a big mess. Mqurice