4 ms·
We may not need FTL travel, at least for interstellar exploration, as opposed to intergalactic. Even a ship going at 50% of light speed would put hundreds of st
by Santosh83 8y ago
We may not need FTL travel, at least for interstellar exploration, as opposed to intergalactic. Even a ship going at 50% of light speed would put hundreds of stars within a reasonable time-frame, especially coupled with advances in cryogenic technology. If humanity's only goal is to avoid extinction by colonising another planet (what a dreary prospect), then this ought to be quite enough.
- coldtea 8y agoOr maybe the universe is indifferent to our goals, and we're stranded in this rock without sufficient materials and ways to get away, no matter how inventive we can be. (The same way inventiveness doesn't matter if you found yourself in the middle of Antarctica with no food, no heating, and no materials to make a compass).
- tajen 8y agoDon’t say that! It shatters so many people’s dreams, which they really really think are reasonable and will come true. More seriously, I wonder what happens if we let people believe life on Mars is feasible, and we only tell them a century later that it was unrealistic. Will they massively invest in it? Given the time it took for Galileo to persuade thick-headed people that the Earth ran around the Sun despite their beliefs, and how much they were ready to torture for this reason, I wonder how far the belief of Mars can go.
- bsder 8y agoActually, we seem to be unnaturally lucky in this regard. I think if the Earth was something like 40% more massive, we wouldn't be able to leave the surface with chemical propulsion.
- foota 8y agoWow, that's a really awesome factoid. This QA goes more into this observation: https://space.stackexchange.com/questions/14383/how-much-bigger-could-earth-be-before-rockets-wouldt-work https://space.stackexchange.com/questions/14383/how-much-big... From what's there it looks like it's a lot higher than 40% as a limit.