[Matumio]

Given those time frames, maybe don't send primates. Send a computer babysitting a diverse zoo of bacteria and algae, with a variety of landing devices and instructions in what order to deploy them under which circumstances.

Same problem: the best-case outcome is that we never hear anything interesting from that rocket ever again. But it should be a lot cheaper.

[nosianu]

> Send a computer

Those age too. Especially out there without the earth's shields. If you make one that lives longer than a human it's already quite the feat, add only a bit more radiation, it only gets worse. Computers are much worse with failures than brains too.

The nice thing about biological systems is the self-assembly from tiny molecule parts. Worst case, you can create a closed system with birth/death renewal. For tech the machines that build the machines, and the machines that build or repair those in turn, will all have to be brought along too, or you need to have some impossibly tough requirements for the product to last.

We may need some similar automatic self-assembly for tech for such use cases. The whole spaceship and all its components will deteriorate too.

Even when we sent out ships to venture around the world they had to be able to do replacements for broken parts, like masts. We probably need that capability for space ships too, to stop at some asteroid and rebuild. But then you get the equivalent of the rocket equation: On the one hand, you need a lot of stuff to support that manufacturing, on the other hand, every item you add itself needs maintenance and rebuilding at some point. The way out is this molecular-level self-assembly. You throw a few tiny nano-machinery dust spores on an asteroid, and ten years later you grew some useful machinery...

[nradov]

The notion of a general-purpose molecular assembler or nanofactory appears to be a pure fantasy. We don't even have a theoretical approach to making that happen.