5 ms·

Is anyone else a little bothered by the fact that the reported speed was 1/5 the speed of light, yet the flyby necessarily increased to well over the speed of l

by ohazi 14y ago

Is anyone else a little bothered by the fact that the reported speed was 1/5 the speed of light, yet the flyby necessarily increased to well over the speed of light in order to actually get you to Mars before you got bored and closed the tab? Traveling at the speed of light would have taken 5-20 minutes. Traveling slower than that would have taken even longer...

chm 14y ago
Distances are in pixels, with the Earth's diameter being 100 px.
- aetherson 14y ago
  Yes, he knows. But the point is: They say they're going 20% of the speed of light (in pixels). But the closest approach of Earth and Mars is about 4.35 light minutes away from each other. So if our virtual speed is 20% of the speed of light, it follows that the page should take more than 20 minutes to reach Mars. And it doesn't. It doesn't even take 4.35 minutes, so the page must be continuing to accelerate past the 20% c measure, to superluminal speeds, in order to finish in a couple of minutes or so. Which they don't mention.
  - vacri 14y ago
    The page flashes for me a couple of times, after which the starfield is still and then rapidly speeds up again. I assume this means that we're travelling with the assistance of warpgates or similar - and at 127km/pixel, it's unlikely that the warpgate or the ship would show on the map.
    - shardling 14y ago
      Nah, because if it's physical travel the starfield won't change at all. :P
aqme28 14y ago
Travelling at the speed of light would have taken 0 seconds for you, the traveller, but 5-20 minutes for your observer. However, the Lorentz factor at 20% of the speed of light is ~1.02. This means the distance you travel is only about 2% shorter, so relativistic effects aren't the reason for the discrepancy.
- shardling 14y ago
  Plus, if it was large enough to have an effect on perceived time, it would affect the apparent distance as well, thus negating the point of the demo!
aetherson 14y ago
Yeah, I hadn't realized that they were doing that, and it does bother me. I don't mind the idea that we're going FTL, but they should explain that in the text, not just report 20% of the speed of light. Ironically, it makes the distances seem shorter than they are, in a thing that seems designed to make you understand how long they are.
deleted 14y ago
[deleted]
doktrin 14y ago
I also wish they would have noted the acceleration. Not doing so in fact undermines the point they're probably trying to make (giving users a visceral feel for the distances involved). Can't say it bothered me, though.
JDGM 14y ago
What is bothering me most now is that if Earth is 100 pixels wide then 1 pixel is 127.42km and Mars should be something like 54600000/127.42 = ~428500 pixels away, not the claimed 857000. The radius of planets has been used where it should be diameter and this error seems to have been carried forward throughout the demonstration. EDIT: This has now been corrected - nice one!
primitur 14y ago
I'm more bothered by the authoritative fact that 'the timeline for a manned mission to Mars is the 2030s'. Says who, NASA? They're not the only ones trying to get there.
- deleted 14y ago
  [deleted]
- jarek 14y ago
  Does anyone else have a realistic more aggressive timeline?
  - jrockway 14y ago
    I'm planning to head over tomorrow. I'll let you know how it goes.
    - alex_doom 14y ago
      Are you there yet?
      - jrockway 14y ago
        Yes. HN is loading slower than normal, however, so you'll have to wait for a full assessment. This whole three-way handshake thing is not such a great idea from Mars.
    - 3327 14y ago
      so was i, wanna split the fare?
  - primitur 14y ago
    See the response above - there is a window in 2018/2020 that private entrepreneurs will shoot for. I wish them luck, personally .. I'd love it if someone other than NASA got there first. It would truly ignite the human race.
Jabbles 14y ago
For me it currently says "You're currently travelling at 7,000 pixels a second 200,000 km/h" - which is clearly wrong, as at that speed it would take an hour to get to the moon. Good idea, well intentioned. But they got the numbers wrong...
- ubershmekel 14y ago
  100 pixel earth = 13KM 1 pixel = 0.13KM 7K pixels/s = 910 KM/s 910 * 60 * 60 = 3.3 Million KM/h
  - peeters 14y ago
    The Earth is not 13 km in diameter. Maybe you meant 13 Mm, or roughly 13 000 km? The result is ~3 billion km/h then. I haven't timed it, but that seems to align with how long the animation took (around half of a minute).
    - sesqu 14y ago
      I timed it, and it was about a minute, so right in line with the 7k pixels/s. That does translate to about 3 billion km/h, or about 250,000 mh/s².
afterburner 14y ago
Speed of light: 1.07925285 × 10e9 km/h Reported speed: 200,000 km/h So more like 1/5000 the speed of light. But as pointed out below the reported speed may be way off. I wonder if a mistake about the speed of light was made; it's about 300,000 km per second.
- drostie 14y ago
  Right, but the original comment is also quite right that the speed is being misreported and the actual speed you're going (reported as 7000 pixels per second) is 3x the speed of light: (12742 km) / (100 px) * (7000 px)/s / c = 2.975
  - afterburner 14y ago
    Yes; mine was more a comment on the site.

by ohazi 14y ago

chm 14y ago

Distances are in pixels, with the Earth's diameter being 100 px.

aetherson 14y ago
Yes, he knows. But the point is: They say they're going 20% of the speed of light (in pixels). But the closest approach of Earth and Mars is about 4.35 light minutes away from each other. So if our virtual speed is 20% of the speed of light, it follows that the page should take more than 20 minutes to reach Mars. And it doesn't. It doesn't even take 4.35 minutes, so the page must be continuing to accelerate past the 20% c measure, to superluminal speeds, in order to finish in a couple of minutes or so. Which they don't mention.
- vacri 14y ago
  The page flashes for me a couple of times, after which the starfield is still and then rapidly speeds up again. I assume this means that we're travelling with the assistance of warpgates or similar - and at 127km/pixel, it's unlikely that the warpgate or the ship would show on the map.
  - shardling 14y ago
    Nah, because if it's physical travel the starfield won't change at all. :P

aqme28 14y ago

Travelling at the speed of light would have taken 0 seconds for you, the traveller, but 5-20 minutes for your observer. However, the Lorentz factor at 20% of the speed of light is ~1.02. This means the distance you travel is only about 2% shorter, so relativistic effects aren't the reason for the discrepancy.

shardling 14y ago
Plus, if it was large enough to have an effect on perceived time, it would affect the apparent distance as well, thus negating the point of the demo!

aetherson 14y ago

Yeah, I hadn't realized that they were doing that, and it does bother me. I don't mind the idea that we're going FTL, but they should explain that in the text, not just report 20% of the speed of light. Ironically, it makes the distances seem shorter than they are, in a thing that seems designed to make you understand how long they are.

deleted 14y ago

[deleted]

doktrin 14y ago

I also wish they would have noted the acceleration. Not doing so in fact undermines the point they're probably trying to make (giving users a visceral feel for the distances involved). Can't say it bothered me, though.

JDGM 14y ago

What is bothering me most now is that if Earth is 100 pixels wide then 1 pixel is 127.42km and Mars should be something like 54600000/127.42 = ~428500 pixels away, not the claimed 857000. The radius of planets has been used where it should be diameter and this error seems to have been carried forward throughout the demonstration. EDIT: This has now been corrected - nice one!

primitur 14y ago

I'm more bothered by the authoritative fact that 'the timeline for a manned mission to Mars is the 2030s'. Says who, NASA? They're not the only ones trying to get there.

deleted 14y ago
[deleted]
jarek 14y ago
Does anyone else have a realistic more aggressive timeline?
- jrockway 14y ago
  I'm planning to head over tomorrow. I'll let you know how it goes.
  - alex_doom 14y ago
    Are you there yet?
    - jrockway 14y ago
      Yes. HN is loading slower than normal, however, so you'll have to wait for a full assessment. This whole three-way handshake thing is not such a great idea from Mars.
  - 3327 14y ago
    so was i, wanna split the fare?
- primitur 14y ago
  See the response above - there is a window in 2018/2020 that private entrepreneurs will shoot for. I wish them luck, personally .. I'd love it if someone other than NASA got there first. It would truly ignite the human race.

Jabbles 14y ago

For me it currently says "You're currently travelling at 7,000 pixels a second 200,000 km/h" - which is clearly wrong, as at that speed it would take an hour to get to the moon. Good idea, well intentioned. But they got the numbers wrong...

ubershmekel 14y ago
100 pixel earth = 13KM 1 pixel = 0.13KM 7K pixels/s = 910 KM/s 910 * 60 * 60 = 3.3 Million KM/h
- peeters 14y ago
  The Earth is not 13 km in diameter. Maybe you meant 13 Mm, or roughly 13 000 km? The result is ~3 billion km/h then. I haven't timed it, but that seems to align with how long the animation took (around half of a minute).
  - sesqu 14y ago
    I timed it, and it was about a minute, so right in line with the 7k pixels/s. That does translate to about 3 billion km/h, or about 250,000 mh/s².

afterburner 14y ago

Speed of light: 1.07925285 × 10e9 km/h Reported speed: 200,000 km/h So more like 1/5000 the speed of light. But as pointed out below the reported speed may be way off. I wonder if a mistake about the speed of light was made; it's about 300,000 km per second.

drostie 14y ago
Right, but the original comment is also quite right that the speed is being misreported and the actual speed you're going (reported as 7000 pixels per second) is 3x the speed of light: (12742 km) / (100 px) * (7000 px)/s / c = 2.975
- afterburner 14y ago
  Yes; mine was more a comment on the site.