How Long Would It Take To Travel To The Nearest Star?
... a nuclear rocket would still take centuries to accelerate to the point where it was flying a fraction of the speed of light. It would then require several decades of travel time, followed by many more centuries of deceleration before reaching it destination. All told, were still talking about 1000 years before it reaches its destination.
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
This is just an interesting article that gives one perspective on the inconceivably vast size of our known universe.
Tags
Who is online
73 visitors
And that technology is way beyond our means right now. Realistically, the best we know we could do would require thousands of years travel time.
Then we have the purely theoretical systems which cut the time but are still within the realm of science fiction.
What about simply moving the earth itself?
Would be a chilly journey.
I wouldn't fuss about the small details, Lol
It's a big detail to me. I hate being cold.
You can go to Florida then, Lol
Best stock up on mittens.
Oh, nothing to it. Just need to put rockets on one side of the earth, fire them up to light speed and we'll get there in 4 years and we won't feel a thing.* We already have the technology--invented and perfected by the famous professor of warp velocity, George Lucas.
*unless photons have neurons
Even atmospheric flight and traveling to the moon were once in the realm of sci-fi.
We have had "warp speed" in our imaginations for many years now.
Verne, Heinlein, Asimov, etc.... proved that whatever we can imagine, we can make reality.
Ergo the word 'still' in my comment.
Not sure what the folk at NASA, JPL and DARPA are up to these days but I'm pretty sure that even those of us 'in the know' don't know the half of it.
No doubt. Science (and engineering) keep producing amazing results.
Stars, like God, do not actually exist.
(Their existence cannot be proven...)
?...
Actually, stars can be proven. We wake up to one every day and send satellites into it to measure it.
God, on the other hand, is a figment of the imagination.
saw a Meme a couple weeks ago , depicting a mother chimp and grey ET posing for a family portrait, the mom holding a human child , now wouldn't that put a crimp and knot in both the creationists and evolutionalists panties if that were actually the case ?
That the human species is the result of an inter-galactic one night stand after a kegger?
Except (being serious of course) human DNA would then reveal an extraterrestrial element and thus be clearly distinguished from other planetary DNA.
It does not (best science can tell) so back to the drawing board.
Also, I'm not sure how they'd get past the incompatibility of their chromosomes. Very few species can reproduce with other species (horses and donkeys producing mules comes to mind), and the offspring are generally sterile.
Probably not... but at the same time, there's a perfectly respectable theory called "panspermia", that suggests that the origin of the complex molecules that came together to create living entities... may be interstellar.
That primordial soup will go right to your head. Next thing ya know, your legs are spread.
Ever been through Mississippi?
Used to live with a Rhesus monkey who would steal from me hourly. It was her favorite thing to do.
Thankfully my pistola was way too heavy and complicated for a monkey.
Well, we if could accelerate at a constant 1g, I think we would overtake Voyager in 12 days? I think that's what that video I posted said... Closest star? Easily doable in a human lifetime.
If we could accelerate at a constant 1G. That opening 'if' is awesome and falls into the realm of science fiction (but it is theoretically possible to achieve).
I did include "if".
I know you did. I mentioned your opening 'if' and then opined on it.
I had no doubt that you are aware that we have no means to accelerate at a constant 1G for very long.
Yea, that's the sucky part. Would be cool though. It would solve all the problems associated with being weightless for a long period of time.
Yes it is an elegant solution.
There's also the issue of deceleration.
And steering. Course corrections would be harrowing.
Let's hope we don't bump into anything along the way
At the half way point, you aim the Enterprise in the opposite direction and apply the same amount of force.
That's what the blind kid that smokes a lot of weed is for....navigation...
Chemical rockets are old school. Some bright kid will come along and make them obsolete.
At least that's the way it happens in all of my sci-fi novels.
Pretty sure that Einstein and his barrier will be proven wrong (or shortsighted) one day.
You make me hard when you talk like that.
lol and the most intelligent minds on this planet and within our own species could be the equivalent of a helmet wearing window licker on the short bus , with a spastic colon and a pants wetting and drooling problem , compared to what ETs could be capable of as far as intelligence and as far as we know.
I have actually had professors who fit that description.
Seems to me that that only solution would be for a society of ETs that is advanced way beyond our comprehension to transport us, as suggested in the movie Contact. China is seeking them now:
Gotta love SETI!
That is a photo of Arecibo.
A two-word answer to the article question: "Too long".
"There once was a man from Nantucket..."
Time for the traveler would be relative. So, I think it is possible for a traveler to reach the nearest stars in a lifetime. The rest of us would be long dead before they arrived, though.
We know that speed and gravity slows time. Acceleration (gravity) to a high velocity should slow the passage time for a traveler relative to our time frame. The Earth is already travelling at about 67,000 mph so we need to learn how to take advantage of that, too. The asteroid belt also provides many opportunities for a gravity assist; while the small size of the objects would make each boost small, the quantity of objects provides many more opportunities. The speed of light is only 670 million mph and it should be possible to achieve half that speed with available technology.
So, I'd say travel to the stars in a single lifetime should be possible but the traveler would be sacrificing a lot.
It all boils down to the speed at which the traveler is moving. The end of the article considers travel times within a lifetime but with technology that is so far beyond our current capabilities we can only imagine it.
For example:
We can, but the problem is that it would take decades to even get close. Solar sails, ion drives...great ideas, but the acceleration curve is....huge.
Gravity assist and using the planets speed to go faster... Yep, good idea.
Maintaining 1g acceleration for 320 (Earth) days would result in a terminal velocity close to the speed of light. And the nearest star is about 4.5 light years away. So, theoretically, the quickest someone could reach the nearest star is less than 6 (Earth) years.
Gravity assist works by using the gravity well of a body to accelerate a space craft. However, that cannot be done in an orbital trajectory; at the very least the craft would achieve escape velocity and could not maintain orbit. Planetary bodies have larger gravity wells and could provide acceleration well above 1g; however, there aren't that many planets and they are separated by large distances. What would be needed are a large number of bodies that could be used to maintain 1g acceleration by gravity assist.
There are a large number of objects beyond the orbit of Pluto that could be used to maintain an average 1g acceleration through gravity assist. With current technology it would require 20 to 30 years to reach that region of the solar system. But it should still be possible to travel to the nearest star within a human lifetime using current technology.
Of course, the most likely outcome would be a spectacular smash up with some distant space rock.
True, but the problem is that the 1g of acceleration will only last while using gravity assist. After that, it would cease to exist.
SHOULD be, and I tend to agree, but logistically, it would be an absolute nightmare and honestly the cost would literally be astronomical.
The problem is fuel. When the space shuttle launched, the fuel was 20 times the weight of the shuttle. Takes a LOT of energy to escape Earths gravity. If it was a 2:1 ratio, awesome. But 20:1? Horrible.
Gravity assist is a great way to get moving but Voyager 2 used gravity assist of what..4? 5? planets and it's traveling at 11 miles a second, which sounds fast as hell...but on a galactic scale? It's nothing.
So you didn't see The Martian?
Many times, good movie.
Cool that NASA had so much fun helping to make the movie
That's why a large number of bodies would be necessary. An asteroid belt establishes a toroidal gravity well. A spacecraft could travel in a spiral around the toroidal well. The orbital velocity around the torus could be maintained below escape velocity and the acceleration would be perpendicular to the orbital plane, following a spiral trajectory.
I think that's how some of 'wavy' segments in the rings of Saturn are postulated to have formed.
Haven't you read Niven and Pournelle? Alien elephants did it.
So that is it on a rational conversation about outer space? It all comes down to TV shows?
This is why we will subjugate you so easily.