4 ms·
Every time I see these types of visualizations, I get the feeling of sadness, that we'll never visit other worlds outside of our own. The immensity of space is
by overcast 10y ago
Every time I see these types of visualizations, I get the feeling of sadness, that we'll never visit other worlds outside of our own. The immensity of space is just incomprehensible. The closest star system Alpha Centauri, is over FOUR light years away. Time dilation will ensure that we will never again see whomever we send out into deep space.
- hammerha 10y agoNo worries. We would be there in some years using VR. We should not be able to tell the difference one day.
- bad_user 10y agoThat's pointless though and our brains will know it.
- stefco_ 10y agoBut so is traveling vast distances to experience something identical to what you can simulate ;)
- bad_user 10y agoThat's not true. The primary reason we want to travel to other planets and stars is because we want to learn more. There's only so much a telescope can detect. Without going there, you won't even have what to simulate. And the other reason for why we want to travel is because we want colonies. Given consumerism, population growth and the destruction of our environment, it gets pretty clear that we need a backup plan. This is why we still need human spaceflight, even if sending robots is much cheaper for discovery and learning purposes. And again, simulation is pointless.
- stefco_ 10y agoAbsolutely, those are very good points, though not all of those problems are best solved by manned missions (e.g. exploration can be more efficiently performed if life-support systems are unnecessary). Increasing human survival odds definitely does require manned missions. But, from a cultural enrichment/learning/individual experience perspective (which I, perhaps incorrectly, assumed the parent comment was referring to) a sufficiently accurate simulation with appropriate man/machine interfaces is a far more efficient solution than manned spaceflight over interstellar distances (provided people can get over their discomfort with the ontology of simulacra).
- javajosh 10y agoLike compound interest, constant acceleration is powerful. 10/m/s/s gets you to 30,000 m/s in 3,000s. That's .1c in less than an hour. The energy required is mv^2, m being the mass of your vehicle, and you can annihilate anti-matter to get, theoretically, Mc^2 of energy out of it. That means you can get to .1c with M=mv^2/c^2=.1^2 or 1% of your vehicle mass of anti-matter. That's a small enough number to leave a lot of wiggle room. (Much smaller, and more realistic, accelerations are possible over longer periods of time, but require using the use of relativistic equations of motion.)
- overcast 10y agoYes sure, great and all for those on the ship. For everyone else back on Earth. We'll never know.
- ziedaniel1 10y agoI think you mixed up m/s and km/s. The speed of light is 300,000,000 m/s, so 30,000 m/s is only .0001c. At 1g, it actually takes a month to reach .1c. (Still, your point stands.)
- cafebabbe 10y agoDon't worry. Our planet will be fucked way before we'll wander anywhere significant. We probably won't even try :)
- deleted 10y ago[deleted]
- deleted 10y ago[deleted]