Hawking: Interstellar colonization or bust
posted at 2:11 pm on November 30, 2006 by Bryan
Share on Facebook | printer-friendly
Humans must colonize planets in other solar systems traveling there using “Star Trek”-style propulsion or face extinction, renowned British cosmologist Stephen Hawking said on Thursday.
Referring to complex theories and the speed of light, Hawking, the wheel-chair bound Cambridge University physicist, told BBC radio that theoretical advances could revolutionize the velocity of space travel and make such colonies possible.
“Sooner or later disasters such as an asteroid collision or a nuclear war could wipe us all out,” said Professor Hawking, who was crippled by a muscle disease at the age of 21 and who speaks through a computerized voice synthesizer.
We’d better have darn good spaceport security, though, or this will just give the future’s enemies more targets to destroy more spectacularly.
(thanks to bWb)
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages:
Can someone remind me again where all the habitable planets are that are reachable by currently available means and that can sustain life without support from Earth? Anyone? Bueller? Bueller?
lorien1973 on November 30, 2006 at 2:23 PM
Hawkings has been riding this horse for decades. It’s a good long term goal but we do need to start a bit more local: i.e. the moon or Mars.
Columbus didn’t sail his ships to Jupiter, afterall.
12thman on November 30, 2006 at 2:25 PM
Hawking is trying to hitch a ride to Talos IV like Captain Pike in the Star Trek pilot.
Valiant on November 30, 2006 at 2:26 PM
What an obscure reference! LOL
lorien1973 on November 30, 2006 at 2:28 PM
This may be Hawkings attempt to escape his 3rd wife.
E5infantry on November 30, 2006 at 2:30 PM
How ’bout Mike Garibaldi (with some help from Talia Winters, of course)
j6p on November 30, 2006 at 2:33 PM
I have always said, if the Israelis or a bunch of Jews landed on planet Neptune, there will be a bunch of Arabs screeming, that they have no right to occupy Neptune, it belongs to Allah. There would be a UN Vote against it. The enemy would invent a reason.
StuLongIsland on November 30, 2006 at 2:34 PM
Are you telling me that San Francisco isn’t in another galaxy??? I’m crushed!!!
robblefarian on November 30, 2006 at 2:38 PM
Has Al Gore come up with interstellar warming yet?
I do believe that we are capable to self-destruct. I’m also disappointed in humanity’s stupidity – it has caused space exploration to remain in its kindershoes because funds need to be applied elsewhere.
This would be a good time to be beamed somewhere else…When I imagine being up there, somewhere, and looking down a this experiment, it’s a rather sad and disappointing one…
Entelechy on November 30, 2006 at 2:38 PM
I’ll admit I haven’t kept up with the latest developments in cosmology, but the last I heard, we hadn’t even managed to create any anti-matter, much less develop a starship engine around it. I think Hawking is dreaming, not that there’s anything wrong with that.
RedWinged Blackbird on November 30, 2006 at 2:41 PM
lorien1973 nailed it.
Mr. Hawking, for all his vaunted intellect, is suggesting what, precisely? In all of the searching that our best telescopes have done, we don’t have a single other solar system identified with fixed-orbit planets. There have been a couple of stars who’s movements “suggest” the gravitational influence of planets, and that’s the best we have.
Even if we found 1,000 solar systems in the next year among the neighboring regions of our galaxy, how many planets would be humanly inhabitable?
- If the Earth’s orbit was 1.5% closer to the Sun human life would be unsustainable as we know it.
- If the Sun were 2% larger or smaller the Earth would be too hot or too cold.
- If the Earth’s precession angle were 5 degrees less (closer to perpendicular to the orbital path), the equatorial region would be too hot, the poles too cold, and there would be no variable seasons.
- And then there is the relationship between the levels of oxygen, nitrogen, carbon, and hydrogen in the atmosphere.
Just how many “Class-M” planets does Hawking expect to find?
Freelancer on November 30, 2006 at 2:42 PM
Yeah, but Mars and the moon suck, cuz they don’t have any atmoshpere…
So I guess we are stuck between a rock and a hard place.
Planets and moons close by that suck for trying to actually live on.
Or planets 200 light years away which are perfect. The only problem being…they are 200 light years away.
BTW, I’m just kidding about the whole 12stman thing. I’m just channelling the spirit of Lindsay Lohan…
EFG on November 30, 2006 at 2:43 PM
Al Gore will whine about warp fields damaging subspace and work to implement the warp 5 speed limit throughout the Federation.
Pelosi will announce that the 100 hour agenda now includes legislation that will require all interstellar spacecraft to include a ship’s counselor, a diversity officer and a sexual harrasment panda. The death penalty for travel to Talos IV will be rescinded as well.
rw on November 30, 2006 at 2:47 PM
j6p, nice reference.
Good old Michael Garibaldi, aka Jerry Doyle, is one of my favorites.
Freelancer on November 30, 2006 at 2:47 PM
Researchers this week confirmed that the evidence is that the extinction of the dinosaurs was caused by a single asteroid (or very large meteoroid) impact.
The dinosaurs are extinct because they didn’t have an interplanetary colonization program.
The Monster on November 30, 2006 at 2:51 PM
We need to build colonies in LaGrange orbits and on the moon in order to start mining the moon/asteroids/etc for the materials we need. We shouldn’t think of the moon or Mars as an end result; rather as a stepping stone.
dalewalt on November 30, 2006 at 2:56 PM
I know this is fiction, but who says we can not make our own environment inside. If we can have people living in Antarctica in man made structures, people in the space station, and others in Arizona. It is possible but not probably a great and dependable way to live.
StuLongIsland on November 30, 2006 at 2:57 PM
Huh…who knew Hawking is British? He doesn’t have an accent.
James on November 30, 2006 at 3:07 PM
If you use some lateral thinking one can come up with all sorts of applications for planetary colonization of uninhabitable planets. For instance, if we went to Mars and proclaimed it part of the United States it wouldn’t take any time at all before MEChA counter-proclaimed it an integral part of Aztlan and made it the next front in demographic warfare. Too bad there’s no air.
dostrick
dostrick on November 30, 2006 at 3:27 PM
So, in reality is Hawking actually really really smart, or just really really really crazy? Because I don’t think he’s both.
Truth be told, I’ve been wondering this every since he came up with his pronouncement that we need to start evolving, double time, lest the machines catch up to us.
Wolfman on November 30, 2006 at 3:32 PM
Stephen Hawking is really really smart; easily our generations’ Einstein.
dalewalt on November 30, 2006 at 3:34 PM
EFG, The moon and Mars are no less habitable than interplanetary space and we have people living there for long periods of time already.
The other big problem with Interstellar colonization is relativistic time dilation. Even if we used our new, low emission, anti-matter NOS to get to a planet 6 light years away at near the speed of light… thousands (or even millions, depending on how fast we go) of years will have passed on Earth.
So, by the time we figured out if our colony took root, the annihilation we were trying to escape will have already taken place.
…man, I’m starting to depress me.
12thman on November 30, 2006 at 3:40 PM
Well, that and no opposable thumbs.
Hack Ptui on November 30, 2006 at 3:41 PM
Oh puh-leeeze. This is why scientists should stick to science. How does he know we’ll face extinction??? Perhaps we will if we let islamobastards continue to kill Western civilization. However, he isn’t speaking out (or whatever he does to communicate) about that. Note to Hawking: Stop being a damned geek and take a stand for ethical monotheism, or morality. Otherwise, shudyup.
Andy in Agoura Hills on November 30, 2006 at 3:57 PM
why
Andy in Agoura Hills on November 30, 2006 at 3:59 PM
can’t I post a comment longer than 1 line????
Andy in Agoura Hills on November 30, 2006 at 3:59 PM
Nevermind.
Andy in Agoura Hills on November 30, 2006 at 4:00 PM
Sustaninable atmosphere isn’t necessary, all we would theoretically need is a lot of natural resources. A lack of atmosphere for example may have a silver lining -greater concentration of solar energy, or the abundance of other gasses in the atmosphere such as hydrogen or methane. The only problem would be the creation of water, with current technology is extremely impractical.
Free Constitution on November 30, 2006 at 4:08 PM
I think you must be right on this. You know, when I first heard Hawking referred to as a renowned cosmetologist, I took it at face value; but when I saw that he was confined to a wheelchair and unable to even sit upright I was mystified at his accomplishments in cosmetology. How?!
So, yes, he must be really, really smart.
Jaibones on November 30, 2006 at 4:15 PM
Pick up one of his books sometime; he has a great knack (for a scientist) of explaining esoteric things like string theory in layman terms.
dalewalt on November 30, 2006 at 4:23 PM
Ugh!
I take it you’re kidding.
Anyway, NASA scientists claim an atmosphere can be created on Mars by releasing CO2 gasses, the Moon through it’s presumed stores of water ice, or just about anywhere. Apparently, it just takes a really, really long time.
thedecider on November 30, 2006 at 4:24 PM
Hmm, sounds like this will be a “No Smoking” planet. Count me out. I’ll take my chances with extinction.
RedWinged Blackbird on November 30, 2006 at 4:43 PM
RedWinged Blackbird wrote:
The NYT reports “Physicists working in Europe announced yesterday that they had passed through nature’s looking glass and had created atoms made of antimatter, or antiatoms, opening up the possibility of experiments in a realm once reserved for science fiction writers.”
Freelancer wrote:
CNN reported “Astronomers capture photo of extrasolar planet”
I think people could set up permanent islands of life, away from the Solar system, even if it was on hollowed out asteroids sailing in interstellar space for millions of years. The size of asteroids varies from too small to live in all the way up to too big to move (planetoid size).
keylime on November 30, 2006 at 6:18 PM
My first post never “took” so I am trying again and making it shorter…
These two articles “More Sci- Than Fi, Physicists Create Antimatter” and “Astronomers capture photo of extrasolar planet” address some points raised by RedWing Blackbird and Freelancer.
I think creating “mini-worlds” inside artificially propelled asteroids, capable of indefinitely supporting independent human colonies during the time required to cross interstellar space, is possible.
However, that leaves open the question whether or not the passengers would still be human by our standards when they arrived or would they have evolved into something else.
keylime on November 30, 2006 at 7:04 PM
Hawking’s right. Even if nothing else happens, in 4 or 5 billion years our sun will run low on fuel and expand, destroying Earth.
You have to plan ahead for these things.
And if you take into account things like asteroids, gigantic solar burps, roving singularities, etc., then having population on more that one planet Just Makes Sense.
Sure, it’s not like we can get it done next week or anything. But we’ll be surprised how quick it happens once we get started.
We could terraform Mars in our lifetime. Maybe it wouldn’t be just like Earth, but at least to the point where you could walk outside.
We don’t really know how we’ll power space exploration in the far-flung future. Maybe it will be centuries to our new homes, maybe it’ll be weeks or hours.
Unless we sit on our keesters and bitch about how impossible it is, then we know how long it will take.
Merovign on November 30, 2006 at 7:04 PM
Mars does have an atmosphere it is just thinner and a different makeup then Earth and so not currently breathable to humans. It was theorized by both scientists and sci-fi for a long time that Mars could someday be colonized. Humanity should focus on that long before worrying about interstellar travel – for which there is no hope of any tech breakthough anytime soon.
Resolute on November 30, 2006 at 7:26 PM
Stephen Hawking is right. Not because of a doomsday scenario (though a few can easily come to mind), but because humans need to explore and conquer new territories: it’s in our nature.
As far as I’m concerned, let the skeptics be damned. It won’t be the first time they’ve bedeviled an idea with a sneer and a scoff only to be proved fools later on. Interstellar travel could be achieved in this century (or possibly much sooner) with innovation and effort, and an adventurous spirit.
zoyclem on November 30, 2006 at 7:27 PM
I wonder what AP thinks about this since he is an atheist. No God to destroy the wicked and renew the world and give it back the Clean. Our Sun will explode into a white Dwarf so there is no forever for our earth. Does Allah think it should be in the plans for mankind to leave this terra firma? Or just dissappear from the Universe and all we will have left is tv waves floating in space and that satellite with the davincie picture in it?
Drtuddle on November 30, 2006 at 7:39 PM
Actually,
in all seriousness, we need to get off this planet for the very same reasons that Europeans moved to the Americas. In fact, the people who were living here at that time, probably came from somewhere else, for precisely those same reasons.
Previous commentators who claim humans can’t live on an airless planetoids don’t understand that humans can, given enough time, and energy, create any environment desired, and energy is the one thing plentiful ‘out there’.
We don’t need exotic physics, just a little ingenuity, and the freedom to make the attempt.
If you don’t see any reason, consider these:
1. War
2. Plague
3. Famine
4. Migration.
Pick one.
There was an interesting news story on Fox News about the influx of Iraqi’s moving into Jordon. One could also presume that Iraqi’s are also moving into Syria. Has anyone noticed an increased number of immigrants to the United States?
Anyone remember US history following the civil war? “Go west, young man, go west.”
rockhauler on November 30, 2006 at 7:54 PM
Imaaams Iiiiin Spaaaaaaaaace!
Dave Shay on November 30, 2006 at 9:03 PM
Lorien 1973:
Mars, Venus, Titan, for starters.
The term (one which probably terrifies Algore) is “terraforming”.
There’s no reason we could not terraform several of the planets and larger moons. It would take time, and unlike our ancestors, we have no patience for multi-generational projects.
Titan might not be something we want to terraform; it supposedly has seas of liquid methane and rains petrochemicals. A very valuable moon.
Hiraghm on November 30, 2006 at 9:15 PM
Please people!
Venus is NOT inhabitable. Not even with terraforming. Too close to the sun.
I don’t buy the Titan thing either. Probably too small to maintain a decent atmosphere (but I could be wrong).
Mars is, but the way to terraform it is to send Algore there–he’s so full of, … ahem, hot air. (sorry everyone) But it would be very difficult since Mars has less mass than Earth, so the upper bound of its capability to maintain an atmosphere is significantly less than that of Earth.
The moon could only be used as a stepping stone to Mars.
Even if near-C travel is possible (and I’m NOT discounting the possibility, geek that I am), the technology is centuries away, barring an encounter with Vulcans.
The planets purported to be found outside our solar system (again, not explicitly denying) are most likely Jupiterian in nature and size. It will still be a while before we are able to detect “wobbles” caused by smaller, less massive planets. It will be longer still before we are able to determine the makeup of their respective atmospheres (i.e., class M, or other).
We also won’t know if they are already occupied. Wouldn’t want to incur the wrath of the Native American Rigellians. (do I have to say jk?)
Finally an observation: If humans were to spread into the galaxy (and perhaps beyond) just before the Islamists took over, then they would be the ones roaming the galaxy, using up the resources of various planets before moving on, a la just-about-every-alien-invasion-movie-ever-made. Maybe we should spare the galaxy the trouble and anihilate ourselves completely now.
urbancenturion on November 30, 2006 at 10:43 PM
Aw, c’mon! You don’t even throw me a bone for the “cosmetolgoy” ploy? Tough room…
Jaibones on December 1, 2006 at 1:40 AM
The dinosaurs are extinct because they didn’t have an interplanetary colonization program.
MAybe some dinos did leave. The ones left behind drew short straws.
Drtuddle on December 1, 2006 at 8:38 AM
I second the comment about relativistic effects of space travel. Didn’t Hawking ever read the Known Space books? ;)
Dinsdale Piranha on December 1, 2006 at 10:10 AM
This one is a no brainer and it will happen given time. It is in the very nature of Man to explore and expand.
Timber Wolf on December 1, 2006 at 12:36 PM
Just a quick thought drummed up from our Pop Culture…A quote from Tommy Lee Jones in “Men In Black” (I know, I know…The aliens aren’t really here yet, but follow the logic. It’s in there…)
All of what we know about our future in space is thought by some, or by current scientific standards, to be “impossible”. That’s what we know now. Given the time and what we’re capable of creating when we’re not busily trying to kill each other, imagine what you’ll “know” tomorrow.
52Ranger on December 1, 2006 at 1:05 PM
Comment pages: