🧵 Interstellar travel - why don’t we put our minds to it?
Anonymous at Mon, 6 May 2024 14:38:25 UTC No. 16162321
1% light speed is achievable even with conservative tech
5-10% light speed may be possible with fusion engines or nuclear pulse plate pushers.
Above 10% we prob need some strange new technology.
Faster than lightspeed, who knows if this couls be possible (advanced Albuquirre drive).
Why do we war instead of colonizing the solar system and the galaxy?
Anonymous at Mon, 6 May 2024 14:50:02 UTC No. 16162327
>>16162321
>Why do we war instead of colonizing the solar system and the galaxy?
to decide who gets to do it
Anonymous at Mon, 6 May 2024 14:53:13 UTC No. 16162330
>>16162321
Which war are you waging and why haven't you stopped to colonize mars or what ever? Kinda low tier move from you
Anonymous at Mon, 6 May 2024 14:54:10 UTC No. 16162331
>>16162321
It might be possible to get between 15% and 20% of the speed of light using tiny satellites with large sails that are propelled by ground based lasers
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Break
I don't know if the same thing would work for a manned vehicle
Anonymous at Mon, 6 May 2024 15:34:22 UTC No. 16162379
>>16162321
>1% light speed is achievable even with conservative tech
What do you mean by conservative tech, no chemical rocket can do it.
Even ion thrusters with a nuclear generator and generous time wouldn't reach 1%.
Anonymous at Mon, 6 May 2024 15:51:12 UTC No. 16162398
why can't the star trek schizo stay in their containment thread?
>>>/sci/sfg/
Anonymous at Mon, 6 May 2024 16:28:30 UTC No. 16162445
>>16162398
Because there are two /sfg/ threads and I can't be expected to know which one is real.
Anonymous at Mon, 6 May 2024 17:54:12 UTC No. 16162547
>>16162331
Even if you managed to achieve that speed for a manned vehicle:
Colissions with any particle will irradiate all occupants.
Probability of a colission with a more sizeable particle will probably be near 1 on an interstelar mission and result in the obliteration of the entire craft at those speeds.
At 0.1 C the journey to the closest stars will take 50 years (assuming you survive the above).
Once there: How to apply the brakes, theres no laser on the opposite side to provide negative acceleration.
After you managed to survive everything, somehow shed speed and swing by: Barren inhabitable westeland.
Just send rucking replicants on scouting missions instead. Whole host of other problems but still more feasible.
8 at Mon, 6 May 2024 22:24:20 UTC No. 16163028
>>16162321
Why do we war instead of colonizing the solar system and the galaxy?
I believe you perfectly, better than me know why: politics, dividing propaganda everywhere, “generation A bad, generation B good” and so on. Rulers don’t want the world to be at peace
Anonymous at Mon, 6 May 2024 22:26:56 UTC No. 16163034
>>16162321
because of the welfare state, we need to provide for useless boomers and blacks.
there isn't any resource for anything else, anon.
in fact, the wars going on are just to keep the american empire system from blowing up so they can keep exorting resources from 3rd world countries to keep the welfare state alive.
Anonymous at Mon, 6 May 2024 23:39:14 UTC No. 16163158
>>16162331
The big issue is deceleration, won't be any super powerful lasers in deep space where you how to land unless it's already been colonized the slow way generations ago. Unlikely.
>>16162547
A thick enough forward shield of pure water will solve all impact and radiation hazards. The water can be decontaminated and used to drink onboard as well then recycled back into the forward shield. The issue is lifting that much water off the Earth is impossible with current rocket technology. You would have to build space infrastructure or capture an icy comet and mine it for water in space already.
Anonymous at Tue, 7 May 2024 00:25:57 UTC No. 16163223
>>16162321
space stuff is still too expensive. a single nasa manned mission to the moon will cost as much as two aircraft carriers. we have to wait for starship to take over the industry.
Anonymous at Tue, 7 May 2024 00:40:12 UTC No. 16163256
>>16162321
Because
1. Even going at c would take you longer than the lifetime of the human civilization to get anywhere
2. You won't even get to 1/2c due to electromagnetic drag and all the radiation bombarding your vessel ripping it apart
Life sucks, I know, deal with it
Anonymous at Tue, 7 May 2024 03:51:13 UTC No. 16163480
>>16163256
>Even going at c would take you longer than the lifetime of the human civilization to get anywhere
Not to the nearest few stars
Anonymous at Tue, 7 May 2024 04:00:08 UTC No. 16163490
>>16163480
>DUUDDDEE!!! OMG!!!! THE SPPEEEDDEE OF LITEEE!!!!
>JUST LIKE IN MUH STAR WARS MOOOOOOVIES!!!
>OMG WHAT IF THERES FRIENDLY ALIENSSZZTTTHHH!!!!
>AND TALKING ROBOTS TOOO!!!!
Anonymous at Tue, 7 May 2024 18:19:01 UTC No. 16164297
>>16163490
cringe post
Anonymous at Tue, 7 May 2024 18:23:55 UTC No. 16164305
>>16163490
low IQ
Anonymous at Tue, 7 May 2024 23:27:51 UTC No. 16164912
>>16164297
>>16164305
>virgin white bois fantasying going to space travel while they're women getting fucked by tyrones
Anonymous at Wed, 8 May 2024 13:32:06 UTC No. 16165807
>>16162321
>1% light speed is achievable even with conservative tech
No it's not moron
Anonymous at Wed, 8 May 2024 13:47:18 UTC No. 16165836
>>16163480
And kindly tell me what the fuck are you going to do around a few lonely stars, look at them until you die?
Anonymous at Wed, 8 May 2024 13:54:24 UTC No. 16165847
Now what happened to lidar research seemed so useful to determine weather conditions and detect orbiting objects positioning
Anonymous at Thu, 9 May 2024 03:08:08 UTC No. 16166745
>>16165836
obtain the free real estate and resources
Anonymous at Thu, 9 May 2024 03:29:03 UTC No. 16166766
>>16162321
https://dothemath.ucsd.edu/2024/05/
> I don’t want to undercut my usual message of how vast and empty space is by making it sound like all the stars we see are sort-of close. The main point to take away is: tens and hundreds of light years—that’s what we typically see. But just to be sure, here’s a fun calculation showing that even 5 light yeas is crazy far in nay practical sense.
> If using the only sort of propulsion we’ve ever used to move humans through space (chemical rockets), let’s see how long it would take to reach the nearest star, just over four light years away. We’ll pack minimally, and try to get away with a 10 ton payload—four times less than the payload delivered to the moon by Saturn V rockets (don’t ask me how to pare down to this: forget the toothbrush!). We’ll also use a fuel mass equivalent to the entire fossil fuel endowment of Earth: let’s say five trillion barrels of oil equivalent, coming to a mass of 500 billion tons. We’re not messing around, here. Go big or stay home!
> The logarithmic rocket equation using a high exhaust velocity of 4,000 meters per second would produce a payload velocity of about 100,000 meters per second, or one-three-thousandth the speed of light. Therefore, it would take over 12,000 years to reach the nearest star. Don’t wait up. This is using the entire fossil fuel provision of Earth (or its mass equivalent), 50 billion times the mass of the payload. Logarithms are cruel, so that nuances to this crude calculation won’t change the overall conclusion. Guess we’ll stay home, then.
Anonymous at Thu, 9 May 2024 03:38:15 UTC No. 16166777
>>16166766
we're obviously not going to use chemical rockets
Anonymous at Thu, 9 May 2024 04:09:43 UTC No. 16166814
>>16166777
So what are we going to use?
Anonymous at Thu, 9 May 2024 05:14:05 UTC No. 16166857
>>16166814
Nuclear in various forms. Also it doesn't matter if it takes a long time. Look into sleeper ships
Anonymous at Thu, 9 May 2024 05:32:24 UTC No. 16166874
>>16166857
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ORr
Anonymous at Thu, 9 May 2024 05:45:37 UTC No. 16166884
>>16166745
>can't even harvest resources on the moon or his own home planet effectively
>thinks he can do so with a star
Scifi delusionists always make me laugh
Anonymous at Thu, 9 May 2024 05:50:31 UTC No. 16166889
>>16166874
This isn't the dunk you think it is. Project Orion is low tech and could get to 0.3c. Meaning you could get to the closest stars in a human lifetime. The video talks about how it's basically impossible to get to the speed of light and about how relativity makes time pass differently between people on the ship and people on earth. Both of which don't matter. Even if it took 100 years you could have a generation ship or a sleeper ship
Anonymous at Thu, 9 May 2024 05:52:05 UTC No. 16166891
>>16166884
>on the moon
yeah because nobody has has done it yet
>is own home planet
What does this mean? Where do you think all the shit you see around you came from?
You don't have an argument
Anonymous at Thu, 9 May 2024 06:12:16 UTC No. 16166904
>>16166889
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proje
A bunch of nukes going off above Earth's atmosphere. What could possibly go wrong?
> Even if it took 100 years you could have a generation ship or a sleeper ship
A generation or a sleeper ship on a 100 year voyage would have to be self sustaining. How would you do that?
Anonymous at Thu, 9 May 2024 10:03:00 UTC No. 16167042
>>16162321
You know voyager 1 is currently traveling at around 20.5% the speed of light. It is literally flying at around 38,185 miles per hour and increasing , it will be interesting to see how high a percentage it can get to without exploding.
Anonymous at Thu, 9 May 2024 10:10:59 UTC No. 16167050
>>16167042
Edit. Actually it is not increasing, it is slowly decreasing by the gravitational pull from the Sun , and after it breaks out of the Suns field it will remain relatively constant at around 20% of the speed of light. That is ,ofc, until it hits star dust and explodes with in an insane force.
Anonymous at Thu, 9 May 2024 10:16:21 UTC No. 16167056
>>16166891
>Where do you think all the shit you see around you came from?
It comes with a cost of millions of lives and 0.0000000001% efficiency, there is absolutely fuck-all to do around a star
Anonymous at Thu, 9 May 2024 13:31:24 UTC No. 16167324
>>16162321
These people say No.
Anonymous at Thu, 9 May 2024 13:36:29 UTC No. 16167330
Anonymous at Thu, 9 May 2024 14:12:23 UTC No. 16167362
>>16164912
>@TRAD_WEST_
the absolute state of this board lmao
Anonymous at Thu, 9 May 2024 14:26:41 UTC No. 16167379
>>16166904
Nobody said anything about launching it from the ground.
A generation or a sleeper ship on a 100 year voyage would have to be self sustaining. How would you do that?
Well anon designing you own mini eco system is not really that sci fi. You would recycle all the water and waste back into usable food and water and scrub the air all with electricity.
>>16167056
>It comes with a cost of millions of lives
yeah people in the gilded age and in china die in industrial accidents all the time. I don't see a reason why we have to do that somewhere else.
> there is absolutely fuck-all to do around a star
There will be planets and asteroids there just like here. You seem to be disillusioned with life.
Anonymous at Thu, 9 May 2024 14:26:53 UTC No. 16167380
>>16162321
We haven't even been to the moon in over fifty years, OP. We have a singular ISS and most of the Earth isn't even properly terraformed yet. Almost nobody lives underwater and few can bare the extreme heat or cold of the deserts and polar ice caps (but they do exist, like McMurdo Station). Let's work on that before venturing off into deep space
Anonymous at Thu, 9 May 2024 14:30:53 UTC No. 16167387
>>16162321
OP, how do yo feel about JUICE?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jupit
Not sending humans, but it is supposed to eventually reach Jupiter's Icy Moons so we can get better images and more information about them. It's pretty cool imo
Anonymous at Thu, 9 May 2024 14:41:48 UTC No. 16167406
>>16167380
why do people always make this fallacious argument of
>we should do x before we do y
as if all the aerospace engineers are going to change careers to do what you want. Real life is not a game of Civilization
Anonymous at Thu, 9 May 2024 14:42:49 UTC No. 16167408
>>16167387
NASA needs more industry missions and fewer science missions.
What did the $10 Billion JWST tell us that we didn't know before? And how is that information beneficial to humanity?
The next stage in NASAs missions for the next 10-20 years should be figuring out all the feasibility aspects about asteroid mining and to get the process started.
Anonymous at Thu, 9 May 2024 15:04:49 UTC No. 16167437
>>16162321
How about you get the basics down before worrying about other planets. Like, not completely collapsing and failing to breed.
Anonymous at Thu, 9 May 2024 15:21:02 UTC No. 16167452
>>16167379
>There will be planets and asteroids there just like here.
And all the potentially habitable ones that you could actually take any advantage of without transporting an entire planets worth of industrial equipment would take you longer to reach than the lifetime of the human civilization without absolutely any guarantee that they are hospitable in the first place, I'm sorry your bing bing wahoo fantasies will never come into fruition, you'll just have to deal with the harsh reality like all the other adults
Anonymous at Thu, 9 May 2024 15:29:08 UTC No. 16167464
>>16167452
>take you longer to reach than the lifetime of the human civilization
This is objectively wrong. Research nuclear pulse propulsion. Proxima centauri is only 4 light years away. Speeds of 0.1c are totally achievable. So there's no reason to think that people in the future couldn't go there.
Anonymous at Thu, 9 May 2024 16:23:14 UTC No. 16167551
>>16167464
>4ly
>at 0.1c
Top zozzle, this is what rick and morty does to your brain
Anonymous at Thu, 9 May 2024 16:26:37 UTC No. 16167560
>>16167551
make an actual argument. You're emotional like a woman right now
Anonymous at Thu, 9 May 2024 16:35:16 UTC No. 16167572
>>16162321
>less that 10% of c with memefusion instead of more than 20%
>ftl
So this is what gay technocrats are pushing now to don't do shit uh?
Anonymous at Thu, 9 May 2024 16:59:59 UTC No. 16167603
>>16162547
deceleration could be achieved by ejecting as a smaller mass. , you would probably need nuclear detonatations to do it , maybe in multiple stages., you also might be able to use the gravity of celestial bodies to slow you down.
Anonymous at Thu, 9 May 2024 18:01:20 UTC No. 16167683
>>16167042
thats 0.005685% of the speed of light lol
Anonymous at Thu, 9 May 2024 21:56:41 UTC No. 16168029
>>16167560
>make an actual argument
How about you first, as you clearly haven't even done the math for what you're trying to propose
Anonymous at Thu, 9 May 2024 22:06:43 UTC No. 16168045
>>16168029
I've made several arguments you haven't been able to refute them
Anonymous at Thu, 9 May 2024 22:10:25 UTC No. 16168057
>>16168045
Go ahead then, start travelling towards alpha centauri at 0.1c, provided you can even accelerate to that speed, I'm sure you'll make it before your entire spacecraft is a derelict box of corpses lmao
Anonymous at Thu, 9 May 2024 22:39:31 UTC No. 16168105
>>16168057
that's not a real argument
Anonymous at Thu, 9 May 2024 22:44:54 UTC No. 16168109
>>16168105
Do the math and prove your argument then
Anonymous at Fri, 10 May 2024 00:46:50 UTC No. 16168232
>>16168109
It's already been done. You're interested in holding your own emotional position. I'm not doing anything for someone that can't make arguments. Stay ignorant if you want. It's irrelevant to me
Anonymous at Fri, 10 May 2024 00:59:44 UTC No. 16168247
>>16162331
Even for the few grams (below 30) that you need for the breakthrough starshot probe you would require a 100GW laser. If I am not mistaken, this requirement would scale linearly with mass here so for a 400 kg probe you would need a 1.3PW laser. As you accelerate for 10 minutes the energy required is 800PJ. The daily electricity used by the US is 44PJ.
Anonymous at Fri, 10 May 2024 06:13:35 UTC No. 16168610
>>16167042
Kys
Anonymous at Fri, 10 May 2024 06:22:56 UTC No. 16168616
>>16167380
Tbf deep water is more shithole than deep space
Anonymous at Fri, 10 May 2024 07:59:33 UTC No. 16168683
>>16168232
>It's already been done
Yeah and I just did it, turns out that your entire crew won't even make 1/3 of the way, now back to watching rick and morty for you
Anonymous at Fri, 10 May 2024 08:20:28 UTC No. 16168696
Im 100% convinced that the faustian white man will invent some meme drive that will take us to the stars. but first we need to get rid of the useless thirdies and be able to adapt our bodies.
it's our birth right and destiny
Anonymous at Fri, 10 May 2024 08:45:37 UTC No. 16168717
>>16168683
Your defeatist fantasies are not arguments.
Don't pollute discussions about future possibilities with your subhuman mindset.
Anonymous at Fri, 10 May 2024 09:19:17 UTC No. 16168733
>>16168717
>NOOO I CAN'T FACE REALITY LUFE HAS TO BE LIKE MY SCIFI FANTASY DELUSIONS WAAH
What a sad existence
Anonymous at Fri, 10 May 2024 10:41:20 UTC No. 16168804
>>16168247
why they want to use lasers instead of particle beams? lasers seems to be extremely inefficient
Anonymous at Fri, 10 May 2024 14:11:51 UTC No. 16169010
OP do you have any idea how fucking far even the nearest star is? Do you have any understanding at all of that distance? Interstellar travel is not sucking cocks, it is an enormous challenge on many fronts.
Let's land on Mars first okay?
Anonymous at Fri, 10 May 2024 14:26:22 UTC No. 16169040
>>16162321
because it doesn't pay off to the governments on earth, and the colonists are probably never returning assuming they don't die
why would they send back resources that far away?
Anonymous at Fri, 10 May 2024 16:19:14 UTC No. 16169199
>>16166745
Just go to antarctica or sahara. Still a thousand time more habitable, probably equal in availability of ressourced. A gorrillion times more within reach.
Enjoy your free ressources.
Anonymous at Fri, 10 May 2024 18:06:20 UTC No. 16169339
>>16162547
So what? Life's so bad it isn't funny. If you offered anyone who has it bad the chance to go, they would. Especially if you gave them and their family like $50,000 and food for the trip. Better than needing to slave all day and live in misery and need to get up for work. Noooo not the heckin particle collision! There are much worse things than this and the only people who talk this way have such an insular life with good salaries they think some random wagie shit can't be that bad. It is. Nonexistence is preferable if you're in the bottom 20% of earners so the safety argument is meaningless. Just send some poor person and they will gladly seize the chance and view the risks and cold life in space as better than the hell that was there on earth. Stupid midwit.
Anonymous at Fri, 10 May 2024 18:46:17 UTC No. 16169399
>>16162547
>At 0.1 C the journey to the closest stars will take 50 years
Try 3000
Anonymous at Fri, 10 May 2024 20:34:24 UTC No. 16169582
>>16162547
>Colissions with any particle will irradiate all occupants.
the vehicle has a little pipe on its nose pointing forward and ejects its waste solids/liquids/gasses in a stream in the direction of travel, in just a matter of weeks there will be a large cloud of foul-smelling effluence in front of the vehicle that will take the "particle collisions" with gusto
Anonymous at Sat, 11 May 2024 01:26:21 UTC No. 16169995
>>16168045
Use your head
4 ly
at 10% of the speed of light
So you divide 4ly/0.1c and you get
wait hang on
Somethings wrong I'm getting 40yr? That can't be right
Anonymous at Sat, 11 May 2024 05:34:03 UTC No. 16170298
>>16169995
At 0.5c it just takes 8yr
/sci/ neighsayers btfo
Just go fast
Anonymous at Sat, 11 May 2024 09:31:44 UTC No. 16170539
>>16162321
If we made humans biologically immortal, then we wouldn’t have to worry about going the speed of light, which is impossible.
Anonymous at Sat, 11 May 2024 10:36:00 UTC No. 16170570
>>16170298
It will take you 10000 years just to accelerate to that speed