Do we have a chance of becoming a multiplanetary species in the next 100 years?

Do we have a chance of becoming a multi-planetary species in the next 100 years?
Many space companies have recently announced various rather ambitious plans.
Some want to go to Mars, others to the Moon, others want to put a lot of satellites into orbit, and some want to do everything at once.
In this regard, my question at the beginning of the post needs to be supplemented with a second question.
Can we become a multi-planetary species, or do we just throw a bunch of garbage into space and then try to clean it up?

I believe we can. It seems tech revolutions are becoming exponentially growing rather than linear or decreasing. Thats just me being optimistic. I think mistakes will be made, but all we can do is just learn from it. Im not sure if I will be alive to witness it though unfortunately.

Well, I would argue about exponential technological progress. Most rockets use engines not too different from what they were 50 years ago.
We see a bunch of news similar to:
Rolls Royce and Boeing are working on a nuclear rocket engine.
Scientists at the Princeton Plasma Physics Laboratory have confirmed the possibility of a plasma engine that can accelerate a rocket up to 10 times faster than it is now.
Etc.
But there is no real use of these developments.
I'm not talking about the specific examples given above.

If that's your prerogative that's fine. There are plenty of examples where exponential growth is the case. The summary is that you don't always need to reinvent the wheel if its possible to make it more efficient/curved instead.

1. Rockets can now land without being wasted in the water, thats recent
2. That same technology is now efficient enough to go beyond several planets [slide 7] (mars.nasa.gov/mars2020/spacecraft/launch-vehicle/)
3. Health field (which uses tech to diagnose various issues) have saved several diseases worldwide
4. The internet was not commercialized 50 years ago

sovashadow wrote: If that's your prerogative that's fine. There are plenty of examples where exponential growth is the case. The summary is that you don't always need to reinvent the wheel if its possible to make it more efficient/curved instead.

1. Rockets can now land without being wasted in the water, thats recent
2. That same technology is now efficient enough to go beyond several planets [slide 7] (mars.nasa.gov/mars2020/spacecraft/launch-vehicle/)
3. Health field (which uses tech to diagnose various issues) have saved several diseases worldwide
4. The internet was not commercialized 50 years ago
 

Apparently, I misunderstood you.
Do you have to develop existing technologies to the limit of their capabilities?
Or is it more logical to create new and more efficient technologies?
The big problem here is that promising and fundamentally new technologies are still perceived by people as some kind of magic.
Several years ago, some scientist proposed an effective way to solve the problem of hunger on the planet. In order to bring it to life, a budget was required hundreds of times less than any of NASA's projects. So what?
Nobody did anything.
So in other areas, we will use outdated methods until they stop working for most.
In many areas, this is not bad. Planes or rockets can be safer thanks to time-tested solutions.
But there are not so many such areas. And even these areas would benefit greatly from fundamentally new approaches.

sovashadow wrote: If that's your prerogative that's fine. There are plenty of examples where exponential growth is the case. The summary is that you don't always need to reinvent the wheel if its possible to make it more efficient/curved instead.

1. Rockets can now land without being wasted in the water, thats recent
2. That same technology is now efficient enough to go beyond several planets [slide 7] (mars.nasa.gov/mars2020/spacecraft/launch-vehicle/)
3. Health field (which uses tech to diagnose various issues) have saved several diseases worldwide
4. The internet was not commercialized 50 years ago



Um ... Sorry ... for the previous post. I wanted to say something else. But then I thought about something and something went wrong.
I agree that technology is advancing fast enough, but that also has implications. The space industry is a great indicator of what I mean.
Indeed, we now have reusable rocket parts, many exploration missions, and so on. But at the same time, there is a whole bunch of space debris in low-earth orbit.
We have a bunch of payload control systems to launch different satellites into different orbit levels.
But how many of these devices can remove non-working satellites?
I have seen the payload control system Skyrora that can be used as a space tug and in other ways. I also know a couple of other companies that are working on space debris cleaning devices. But most simply leave satellites there, hoping they will go out of orbit and burn up in the atmosphere. But scientists say there are about 50 thousands different debris in orbit.I mean, development is asymmetrical. We understand how to do a lot of things. But we do not always understand how to prevent the consequences.