Pre-spaceflight NPR?

[Nathan_]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Orion_%28nuclear_propulsion%29#Interstellar_missions

44 years at 0.1c, assuming saving fuel for slowdown it could take up to twice that. Using thermonuclear weapons. The designs for the orion that we can build right now could potentially be very meaningful. Your point about the treaty doesn't do anything to dispute what I said.

I believe the 130 figure is based on atomic weaponry. We of course have more efficient bombs than those now (as it mentiones below the table, my figure comes from later studies considering thermonuclear weapons).

The 130 figure is for nuclear saltwater as well, same principle basically, but is able to be much smaller.  a 3000 ton nuclear saltwater rocket(300 ton payload) is vastly more reachable than a 40M ton rocket, or even the 400k rocket. Only certain supertankers are even that big, it is doubtful we are ready to build a rocket like that.

[Haji]

I'm sorry, are you reading a different discussion to the one i am?

No, I'm simply interested in only part of the discussion. I'm not interested in the "larger picture" or "larger point". I was simply trying to clear up a misunderstanding as to what Fermi's Paradox is. This is quote from your very own post:

^^Fermi paradox

(...) That's saying they tend to die quickly based on lack of evidence of their existence isn't it?

Basically, unless I completly forgot how to read English, you're mistaking Fermi's Paradox for some kind of statment (not sure how else to call it) that since we haven't found any aliens, they have to die off. But this is something completely diffrent as to what Fermi's Paradox is. It's not even connected in fact. Correcting this misunderstanding was the only thing I had in mind - not the larger discussion.

Then you said this (again, quote from your own post, an answer to my explanation what the Fermi's Paradox is):

Exactly. And therefore, it is reasoned, intelligent life must destroy itself before it gets the chance to overrun the galaxy.

Please note you said "it is reasoned" and not "I think" or something like that. The implication is that Fermi concluded that the life must destroy itself before it can leave it's solar system. But he never made an assumption like that. In fact, the paradox is, well, a paradox, becouse he couldn't make an assumption like that.

Then you said something like that:

I don't consider the fermi paradox as particularly strong. It seems to assume a biological imperative to expand life into every available area. Which I don't think is the case. We can, right now, get to alpha centauri in about 40 - 80 years. But we haven't. Because why would we?

To which I responded with my own post about how you seem to assume how all life behaves the same way. Becouse that's what is said above. Or am I misreading something? I mean, for me it looks like you said, that since we don't explore Alpha Centauri right now, despite having capability to do so, then all biological life is probably not that explorative. But you can't just go ahead and say all life behaves this way.

This is also why I don't think you're right by assuming that "Fermi's Paradox isn't particularly strong." That's becouse Fermi's Paradox assumes nothing. All live behaves diffrently and all it takes is one species to fill the galaxy.

WHAT COMES AFTER AND HOW LONG THEY COULD TECHNICALLY CONTINUE IS IRRELEVANT.

It is very relevant. Let's say that one billion years ago, there was an alien nation (not a species; just one nation of alien, a fragment of a species) that is very explorative. Within a million years it filled the entire galaxy. One billion years ago.

So what happened? They couldn't just die out. We're talking about entire galaxy. What could killl a whole technological galactic-scale civilization but left Earth intact? That's the problem, if during all this time even one civilization have filled the galaxy, the galaxy should have stayed filled.

Again, I'm only discussing the paradox; I'm not interested in the rest.

[Person012345]

Basically, unless I completly forgot how to read English, you're mistaking Fermi's Paradox for some kind of statment (not sure how else to call it) that since we haven't found any aliens, they have to die off. But this is something completely diffrent as to what Fermi's Paradox is. It's not even connected in fact. Correcting this misunderstanding was the only thing I had in mind - not the larger discussion.

Then we misunderstand each other, I'll admit I was not precise in what I was saying regarding that, and that what I mentioned was in fact a resolution of fermi's paradox and not the paradox itself.

If you aren't discussing the rest, then the rest of your post I will assume is a misunderstanding (as the material you are quoting was not meant to reference fermi's paradox).