╌>

How Long Would It Take To Travel To The Nearest Star?

  
Via:  TᵢG  •  5 years ago  •  98 comments


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.

Leave a comment to auto-join group Critical Thinkers

Critical Thinkers

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

jrGroupDiscuss - desc
[]
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
1  seeder  TᵢG    5 years ago
However, if mankind felt the incentive to build an “interstellar ark” filled with a self-sustaining community of space-faring humans, it might be possible to travel there in a little under a century if we were willing to invest in the requisite technology.

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.

  • Ionic propulsion would take 81,000 years.
  • Gravity Assist would take 19,000 years
  • Electromagnetic  Drive would take 13,000 years
  • Nuclear Engines would take 1,000 years

Then we have the purely theoretical systems which cut the time but are still within the realm of science fiction.

 
 
 
Gordy327
Professor Expert
1.1  Gordy327  replied to  TᵢG @1    5 years ago

What about simply moving the earth itself? jrSmiley_9_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
1.1.1  seeder  TᵢG  replied to  Gordy327 @1.1    5 years ago

Would be a chilly journey.  jrSmiley_100_smiley_image.jpg

 
 
 
Gordy327
Professor Expert
1.1.2  Gordy327  replied to  TᵢG @1.1.1    5 years ago
Would be a chilly journey

I wouldn't fuss about the small details, Lol

 
 
 
sandy-2021492
Professor Expert
1.1.3  sandy-2021492  replied to  Gordy327 @1.1.2    5 years ago

It's a big detail to me.  I hate being cold.

 
 
 
Gordy327
Professor Expert
1.1.4  Gordy327  replied to  sandy-2021492 @1.1.3    5 years ago

You can go to Florida then, Lol

 
 
 
MrFrost
Professor Expert
1.1.5  MrFrost  replied to  sandy-2021492 @1.1.3    5 years ago
It's a big detail to me.  I hate being cold.

Best stock up on mittens. 

 
 
 
Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו
Junior Participates
1.1.6  Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו  replied to  TᵢG @1.1.1    5 years ago
Would be a chilly journey.

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

 
 
 
cjcold
Professor Quiet
1.2  cjcold  replied to  TᵢG @1    5 years ago
but are still within the realm of science fiction

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.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
1.2.1  seeder  TᵢG  replied to  cjcold @1.2    5 years ago
Verne, Heinlein, Asimov, etc.... proved that whatever we can imagine, we can make reality.

Ergo the word 'still' in my comment.

 
 
 
cjcold
Professor Quiet
1.2.2  cjcold  replied to  TᵢG @1.2.1    5 years ago

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.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
1.2.3  seeder  TᵢG  replied to  cjcold @1.2.2    5 years ago

No doubt.   Science (and engineering) keep producing amazing results.

 
 
 
Krishna
Professor Expert
2  Krishna    5 years ago

Stars, like God, do not actually exist.

(Their existence cannot be proven...)

 
 
 
JBB
Professor Principal
2.3  JBB  replied to  Krishna @2    5 years ago

?...

 
 
 
cjcold
Professor Quiet
2.5  cjcold  replied to  Krishna @2    5 years ago

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.

 
 
 
Mark in Wyoming
Professor Silent
2.5.1  Mark in Wyoming   replied to  cjcold @2.5    5 years ago

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?

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
2.5.2  seeder  TᵢG  replied to  Mark in Wyoming @2.5.1    5 years ago

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.

 
 
 
sandy-2021492
Professor Expert
2.5.3  sandy-2021492  replied to  TᵢG @2.5.2    5 years ago

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.

 
 
 
Bob Nelson
Professor Guide
2.5.4  Bob Nelson  replied to  Mark in Wyoming @2.5.1    5 years ago
That the human species is the result of an inter-galactic one night stand after a kegger?

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.

 
 
 
cjcold
Professor Quiet
2.5.5  cjcold  replied to  Mark in Wyoming @2.5.1    5 years ago

That primordial soup will go right to your head. Next thing ya know, your legs are spread.

 
 
 
MrFrost
Professor Expert
2.5.6  MrFrost  replied to  sandy-2021492 @2.5.3    5 years ago
Also, I'm not sure how they'd get past the incompatibility of their chromosomes.  Very few species can reproduce with other species

Ever been through Mississippi? 

 
 
 
cjcold
Professor Quiet
2.5.7  cjcold  replied to  Mark in Wyoming @2.5.1    5 years ago

Used to live with a Rhesus monkey who would steal from me hourly. It was her favorite thing to do.

 
 
 
cjcold
Professor Quiet
2.5.8  cjcold  replied to  cjcold @2.5.7    5 years ago

Thankfully my pistola was way too heavy and complicated for a monkey.

 
 
 
MrFrost
Professor Expert
4  MrFrost    5 years ago

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. 

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
4.1  seeder  TᵢG  replied to  MrFrost @4    5 years ago
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).

 
 
 
MrFrost
Professor Expert
4.1.1  MrFrost  replied to  TᵢG @4.1    5 years ago
If we could accelerate at a constant 1G. 

I did include "if". 

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
4.1.2  seeder  TᵢG  replied to  MrFrost @4.1.1    5 years ago

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.

 
 
 
MrFrost
Professor Expert
4.1.3  MrFrost  replied to  TᵢG @4.1.2    5 years ago
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.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
4.1.4  seeder  TᵢG  replied to  MrFrost @4.1.3    5 years ago

Yes it is an elegant solution.

 
 
 
Gordy327
Professor Expert
4.2  Gordy327  replied to  MrFrost @4    5 years ago
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. 

There's also the issue of deceleration. 

 
 
 
sandy-2021492
Professor Expert
4.2.1  sandy-2021492  replied to  Gordy327 @4.2    5 years ago

And steering.  Course corrections would be harrowing.

 
 
 
Gordy327
Professor Expert
4.2.2  Gordy327  replied to  sandy-2021492 @4.2.1    5 years ago

Let's hope we don't bump into anything along the way 

 
 
 
MrFrost
Professor Expert
4.2.3  MrFrost  replied to  Gordy327 @4.2    5 years ago
There's also the issue of deceleration. 

At the half way point, you aim the Enterprise in the opposite direction and apply the same amount of force. 

 
 
 
MrFrost
Professor Expert
4.2.4  MrFrost  replied to  sandy-2021492 @4.2.1    5 years ago
And steering.

That's what the blind kid that smokes a lot of weed is for....navigation... ;)

 
 
 
cjcold
Professor Quiet
4.2.5  cjcold  replied to  Gordy327 @4.2    5 years ago

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.

 
 
 
cjcold
Professor Quiet
4.3  cjcold  replied to  MrFrost @4    5 years ago

Pretty sure that Einstein and his barrier will be proven wrong (or shortsighted) one day.

 
 
 
cjcold
Professor Quiet
4.4  cjcold  replied to  MrFrost @4    5 years ago

You make me hard when you talk like that.

 
 
 
Mark in Wyoming
Professor Silent
5  Mark in Wyoming     5 years ago

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.

 
 
 
cjcold
Professor Quiet
5.1  cjcold  replied to  Mark in Wyoming @5    5 years ago

I have actually had professors who fit that description.

 
 
 
Buzz of the Orient
Professor Expert
6  Buzz of the Orient    5 years ago

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:

1280x892_60930N_Telescope-625x352.jpg

"China has put the finishing touches on the world's biggest radio telescope, whose 1,650-foot-wide dish will scan the heavens for signs of  intelligent alien life , among other tasks."

 
 
 
cjcold
Professor Quiet
6.1  cjcold  replied to  Buzz of the Orient @6    5 years ago

Gotta love SETI! 

 
 
 
cjcold
Professor Quiet
6.2  cjcold  replied to  Buzz of the Orient @6    5 years ago

That is a photo of Arecibo.

 
 
 
Buzz of the Orient
Professor Expert
7  Buzz of the Orient    5 years ago

A two-word answer to the article question: "Too long".

 
 
 
MrFrost
Professor Expert
7.1  MrFrost  replied to  Buzz of the Orient @7    5 years ago
"Too long"

"There once was a man from Nantucket..."

 
 
 
It Is ME
Masters Guide
7.2  It Is ME  replied to  Buzz of the Orient @7    5 years ago
A two-word answer to the article question: "Too long".

jrSmiley_13_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
Nerm_L
Professor Expert
8  Nerm_L    5 years ago

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.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
8.1  seeder  TᵢG  replied to  Nerm_L @8    5 years ago

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:

According to a report by  Dr. Darrel Smith & Jonathan Webby  of the Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University in Arizona, an interstellar craft equipped with an antimatter engine could reach 0.5 the speed of light and reach Proxima Centauri in a little over   8 years .   However, the ship itself would weigh 400 Mt, and would need 170 MT of antimatter fuel to make the journey.
 
 
 
MrFrost
Professor Expert
8.2  MrFrost  replied to  Nerm_L @8    5 years ago
The speed of light is only 670 million mph and it should be possible to achieve half that speed with available technology.

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.

From this simple calculation, we see that v(out)-v(in) = 2v-1.4v = 0.6v

The spacecraft thus gained 60% of the planet’s velocity after the gravity assist, adding to its own. You can clearly see that a change in direction is causing an increase in velocity here. The spacecraft’s velocity thus increases quite a bit and the goal is achieved using nothing but gravity.

The Voyagers did this twice, once with Jupiter and then with Saturn to achieve enough velocity so that they can escape our Sun’s gravity. And reach for the stars.

 
 
 
Nerm_L
Professor Expert
8.2.1  Nerm_L  replied to  MrFrost @8.2    5 years ago
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.

 
 
 
MrFrost
Professor Expert
8.2.2  MrFrost  replied to  Nerm_L @8.2.1    5 years ago
could be used to maintain an average 1g acceleration through gravity assist.

True, but the problem is that the 1g of acceleration will only last while using gravity assist. After that, it would cease to exist. 

But it should still be possible to travel to the nearest star within a human lifetime using current technology.

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. 

 
 
 
cjcold
Professor Quiet
8.2.3  cjcold  replied to  MrFrost @8.2.2    5 years ago

So you didn't see The Martian?

 
 
 
MrFrost
Professor Expert
8.2.4  MrFrost  replied to  cjcold @8.2.3    5 years ago

Many times, good movie. 

 
 
 
cjcold
Professor Quiet
8.2.5  cjcold  replied to  MrFrost @8.2.4    5 years ago

Cool that NASA had so much fun helping to make the movie

 
 
 
Nerm_L
Professor Expert
8.2.6  Nerm_L  replied to  MrFrost @8.2.2    5 years ago
True, but the problem is that the 1g of acceleration will only last while using gravity assist. After that, it would cease to exist. 

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.

 
 
 
cjcold
Professor Quiet
8.2.7  cjcold  replied to  Nerm_L @8.2.6    5 years ago

Haven't you read Niven and Pournelle? Alien elephants did it.

 
 
 
Bob Nelson
Professor Guide
8.2.8  Bob Nelson  replied to  cjcold @8.2.7    5 years ago

original Battleship Michael climbing to orbit      Aldo Spadoni, 2014

 
 
 
cjcold
Professor Quiet
10  cjcold    5 years ago

So that is it on a rational conversation about outer space? It all comes down to TV shows?

 
 
 
cjcold
Professor Quiet
10.1  cjcold  replied to  cjcold @10    5 years ago

This is why we will subjugate you so easily.

 
 

Who is online

Drakkonis
Kavika


94 visitors