Interstellar travel - why dont we put our minds to it?

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?

Nothing Ever Happens Shirt $21.68

Tip Your Landlord Shirt $21.68

Nothing Ever Happens Shirt $21.68

  1. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >Why do we war instead of colonizing the solar system and the galaxy?
    to decide who gets to do it

  2. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Which war are you waging and why haven't you stopped to colonize mars or what ever? Kinda low tier move from you

  3. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    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/Breakthrough_Starshot
    I don't know if the same thing would work for a manned vehicle

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      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.

      • 1 week ago
        Anonymous

        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.

      • 1 week ago
        Anonymous

        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.

      • 1 week ago
        Anonymous

        >At 0.1 C the journey to the closest stars will take 50 years
        Try 3000

      • 1 week ago
        Anonymous

        >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

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      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.

      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.

      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.

    • 1 week ago
      Anonymous

      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.

      • 1 week ago
        Anonymous

        why they want to use lasers instead of particle beams? lasers seems to be extremely inefficient

  4. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >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%.

  5. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    why can't the star trek schizo stay in their containment thread?

    [...]

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Because there are two /sfg/ threads and I can't be expected to know which one is real.

  6. 2 weeks ago
    8

    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

  7. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    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.

  8. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    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.

  9. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    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

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >Even going at c would take you longer than the lifetime of the human civilization to get anywhere
      Not to the nearest few stars

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >DUUDDDEE!!! OMG!!!! THE SPPEEEDDEE OF LITEEE!!!!
        >JUST LIKE IN MUH STAR WARS MOOOOOOVIES!!!
        >OMG WHAT IF THERES FRIENDLY ALIENSSZZTTTHHH!!!!
        >AND TALKING ROBOTS TOOO!!!!

        • 2 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          cringe post

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            low IQ

            >virgin white bois fantasying going to space travel while they're women getting fricked by tyrones

          • 1 week ago
            Anonymous

            >@TRAD_WEST_
            the absolute state of this board lmao

        • 2 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          low IQ

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        And kindly tell me what the frick are you going to do around a few lonely stars, look at them until you die?

        • 2 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          obtain the free real estate and resources

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >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

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >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

          • 1 week ago
            Anonymous

            >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 frick-all to do around a star

          • 1 week ago
            Anonymous

            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.

  10. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >1% light speed is achievable even with conservative tech
    No it's not moron

  11. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Now what happened to lidar research seemed so useful to determine weather conditions and detect orbiting objects positioning

  12. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    https://dothemath.ucsd.edu/2024/05/how-far-are-stars/

    > 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.

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      we're obviously not going to use chemical rockets

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        So what are we going to use?

        • 2 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          Nuclear in various forms. Also it doesn't matter if it takes a long time. Look into sleeper ships

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous
          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            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

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Orion_(nuclear_propulsion)
            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?

          • 1 week ago
            Anonymous

            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.

            >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 frick-all to do around a star

            >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 frick-all to do around a star
            There will be planets and asteroids there just like here. You seem to be disillusioned with life.

          • 1 week ago
            Anonymous

            >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

          • 1 week ago
            Anonymous

            >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.

          • 1 week ago
            Anonymous

            >4ly
            >at 0.1c
            Top zozzle, this is what rick and morty does to your brain

          • 1 week ago
            Anonymous

            make an actual argument. You're emotional like a woman right now

          • 1 week ago
            Anonymous

            >make an actual argument
            How about you first, as you clearly haven't even done the math for what you're trying to propose

          • 1 week ago
            Anonymous

            I've made several arguments you haven't been able to refute them

          • 1 week ago
            Anonymous

            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

          • 1 week ago
            Anonymous

            that's not a real argument

          • 1 week ago
            Anonymous

            Do the math and prove your argument then

          • 1 week ago
            Anonymous

            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

          • 1 week ago
            Anonymous

            >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

          • 1 week ago
            Anonymous

            Your defeatist fantasies are not arguments.
            Don't pollute discussions about future possibilities with your subhuman mindset.

          • 1 week ago
            Anonymous

            >NOOO I CAN'T FACE REALITY LUFE HAS TO BE LIKE MY SCIFI FANTASY DELUSIONS WAAH
            What a sad existence

          • 1 week ago
            Anonymous

            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

          • 1 week ago
            Anonymous

            At 0.5c it just takes 8yr
            IQfy neighsayers btfo
            Just go fast

          • 1 week ago
            Anonymous

            It will take you 10000 years just to accelerate to that speed

  13. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >collides with this at relativistic speeds
    pssht.. nothin personnell.... kidd......

  14. 1 week ago
    Anonymous

    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.

    • 1 week ago
      Anonymous

      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.

    • 1 week ago
      Anonymous

      Kys

  15. 1 week ago
    Anonymous

    These people say No.

    • 1 week ago
      Anonymous
  16. 1 week ago
    Anonymous

    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

    • 1 week ago
      Anonymous

      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

    • 1 week ago
      Anonymous

      Tbf deep water is more shithole than deep space

  17. 1 week ago
    Anonymous

    OP, how do yo feel about JUICE?

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jupiter_Icy_Moons_Explorer

    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

    • 1 week ago
      Anonymous

      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.

  18. 1 week ago
    Anonymous

    How about you get the basics down before worrying about other planets. Like, not completely collapsing and failing to breed.

  19. 1 week ago
    Anonymous

    >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?

  20. 1 week ago
    Anonymous

    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

  21. 1 week ago
    Anonymous

    OP do you have any idea how fricking far even the nearest star is? Do you have any understanding at all of that distance? Interstellar travel is not sucking wieners, it is an enormous challenge on many fronts.

    Let's land on Mars first okay?

  22. 1 week ago
    Anonymous

    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?

  23. 1 week ago
    Anonymous

    If we made humans biologically immortal, then we wouldn’t have to worry about going the speed of light, which is impossible.

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *