saltyhasp

saltyhasp t1_j22lq8n wrote

Personally I would think you would have habitats all over the solar system for centuries first. The tech that went into those would naturally be what you needed for long term travel.

Before that you would also have waves of robotic probes doing the journey. You might even send fertilized eggs or frozen embryos a long with them with means to colonize that way instead like another commenter said.

3

saltyhasp t1_j2013a8 wrote

If dorms work for you take dorms. If they do not, consider something else. Personally I liked dorm living...everything taken care of including meals... and I had good roomates though different every year. Plus I am a good sleeper, and could focus too regardless of what else was going on. So they really worked for me. Also avoided drama of dealing with immature off campus roommates.

1

saltyhasp t1_j1q4nln wrote

There is surely an upper limit to useful technology but we are not near it. Who knows if we will ever reach it.

More to your point... there are short term limits to certain lines of technology. Lot of IT is pretty incremental at the moment. AI though there is a lot of activity. On the other hand desktop and laptop computers not much has changed in MS Windows since 2000. Cell phones may be at that point at the moment.

1

saltyhasp t1_j0crlto wrote

Using the numbers the article gave the current closed loop gain is about 1/357. Third laser efficiency is about 0.67%. Go to 20% laser efficiency is 30X. This brings the closed loop gain to 1/10.5. Improving the energy generated by 10X. You get to a closed loop gain just short of 1 at 0.95. So you need more then 10x. This assumes a 30% output to electricity conversion.

1

saltyhasp t1_j0bmhko wrote

Finally an article that admits that yes we are at least 2 orders of magnitude and probably more from anything close to true break even in the energy generation sense. So hard to find any article that admits that.

Until one gets to break even in the holistic sense this is just a curiosity. 2 to 3 orders of magnitude is a long way to go.

43

saltyhasp t1_iyew1pv wrote

Personally I would just include this with whatever your cash management plan, emergency fund, and investment plan you have.

I generally do not favor separate accounts by purpose. Leads to lower returns and poor cash management and asset allocation. Not saying no but my preference.

My motto is place money by asset type not by purpose.

1