I ran into this blog just recently. Even though the originator did email me shortly after my paper was published, this discussion wasn’t on the page then.

Almost everyone in this thread seems to missed the point, or at least if they did get it they are not talking about it.

I was explaining that given any kind of systematic growth (and yes, I do include calculations based on accelerating rates of growth) you can calculate how long to wait to achieve any particular goal in the quickest time. I am not talking about the ‘Columbus fallacy’. I go on to say that this calculation may well be crucial in the race between competing groups to colonize a particular world. Leave at the wrong time and you’ll end up last in the race. This is not going to be an insignificant consideration when the vast investment required to get to any interstellar destination will need to produce a payoff.

I also talk about growth rates and say that the world’s overall growth rate is a) surprisingly resilient to catastrophe, b) does not produce extraordinary innovations that alter the growth rate since the innovations are a function of the growth rate and not something apart.

Of course, the question of whether there is any attainable destination that will actually help us out in the hunt for resources is another issue.

Andrew Kennedy

I think sending a probe to the nearest star will start in the late 22th century when we have enough anti-matter for the trip. Well, it seems like i’m a day dreamer.

So, why buy computer hardware at all? I mean, if it’s just going to be faster next year, why not wait? If everyone did this, the sales that drive the technology would collapse, and the technology advancement would halt. It turns out that you have to build the slower stuff today to be able to build the faster stuff tomorrow.

For interstellar travel, we aren’t talking about me waiting, we’re talking about all of humanity waiting. But if we wait without development, testing, etc., then the technology doesn’t have to advance. Now, we might be able to use carbon nanotube wires that were developed for communications and space elevators to make a really good solar sail. We might be able to adapt other technologies too. But if it turned out that what we really needed was an Orion drive (explode nukes behind you), the only way to do that is to do it. We’re not going to get it by waiting for some domestic need to develop it.

We need nearby goals. The Voyagers are headed out of the solar system. They were designed to get to Neptune. They’ve made it to the heleosheath. That’s a cool goal, reachable without being passed.

BTW, when will New Horizons pass Voyager I in distance from the Sun? I mean, we all heard that New Horizons was launched on a really fast rocket, and passed the Moon in 9 hours, and all that.

Never. Voyager I got a bigger gravity boost from Jupiter than New Horizons will get. New Horizons will never be as fast as Voyager I. That’s the breaks.

We still have minor planets and kuiper belt objects to fly to and study. Then there’s the big telescope project – where you send a probe out far enough to be able to use the Sun as a lens. That’s like 500 AU (or is it 1500 AU?).

As some have mentioned, the movement of the nearby stars makes a difference. Epsilon Eridani is coming our way, and others. You have to aim to where these things will be. Sometimes, waiting for close approach will cut down on time.

I’m optimistic that humans will send probes to interstellar distances. Eventually, humans will go interstellar distances. It’d be nice to get Earth life out to infect other galaxy clusters, before these fall off the light horizon forever.

With the speed technological and scientific progress are happening
these days, we may not – and should not – have to wait as long as
some are predicting.

If every generation retains the mindset that the next generation
will have a better way to reach the stars, we won’t go anywhere.