4 ms·
> Space is so ridiculously big that I don't think it will ever happen You are underestimating acceleration. To travel and come to a stop at 4.2 light years, a
by fooker 11mo ago
> Space is so ridiculously big that I don't think it will ever happen
You are underestimating acceleration. To travel and come to a stop at 4.2 light years, a spaceship with 1g acceleration barely needs 3.5 years in relativistic ship time (~6 years earth time).
The technology to sustain 1g acceleration through 3.5 years is a different story, but very much within our understanding of physics (and not warp drives, etc). 20-50 years of engineering can get us there.
- christkv 11mo agoYou got the shielding problem how to protect the ship from disintegrating when it hits the first pebble at massive speed
- fooker 11mo agoCarry or produce antimatter. Make it collide with stuff colliding with the ship, redirect it's energy for propulsion.
- stickfigure 11mo ago> 20-50 years of engineering can get us there. What energy source do you think is merely 20-50 years of engineering effort away from being able to power that kind of journey?
- fooker 11mo agoSome kind of nuclear reaction or matter-antimatter collision, I assume.
- brookman64k 11mo agoI think you are way too optimistic. Even with an antimatter drive and 100% conversion efficiency, such rocket would have a fuel to payload ratio of >1000.
- fooker 11mo agoThat seems pretty promising actually. Our moon landing missions had a similar ratio, so I assume we can do the engineering to make even a slightly worse ratio work for us a 100 years after it. In practice it would be better with slingshot maneuvers and picking up mass on the way.
- georgefrowny 11mo ago> 20-50 years of engineering can get us there. I want to believe, but I think it'll be a lot more than that. The rocket equation is a stone cold bitch in this case. Sustaining the thrust that accelerates a probe at 1g is very different to sustaining the thrust to move the probe and all the fuel. And it's much worse if you want to stop and not just fly past into deep space.
- fooker 11mo ago> The rocket equation is a stone cold bitch in this case. It might not be. Plenty of hydrogen around everywhere. We just need tech to use it.
- mvkel 11mo agoWhatever speed advancements we make on earth, they pale in comparison to sling shotting off of a planet. to make an engine that can go significantly faster, we would need the energy of a planet.
- fooker 11mo agoor a star :)
- beAbU 11mo agoIs there enough reaction mass on earth to construct a rocket capable of accelerating at 1g for 3.5 years?
- fooker 11mo agoNo, it probably can not be a chemical rocket. Nuclear, yes. My point is that we are in the realm of just needing new engineering (how to make nuclear reactions, or even antimatter-matter collision work for this goal), not new science (warp drives, something else we don't understand about space or gravity, or mass).