Comments on: How Long Would it Take to Travel to the Nearest Star? http://www.universetoday.com/2008/07/08/how-long-would-it-take-to-travel-to-the-nearest-star/ Space and astronomy news Sun, 8 Nov 2009 10:14:11 -0600 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.5 hourly 1 By: Dragonfire: Tobias Holbrook http://www.universetoday.com/2008/07/08/how-long-would-it-take-to-travel-to-the-nearest-star/comment-page-3/#comment-48377 Dragonfire: Tobias Holbrook Sat, 03 Jan 2009 21:02:31 +0000 http://www.universetoday.com/?p=15403#comment-48377 I suggested the coil gun over at NewMars. The unfortunate thing about it is how long it takes to get up to speed without killing its occupents and such. So I suggested launching Ion beams instead. Others suggested Aluminum pellets. Those could work to, if they could perhaps be vaporised to form high speed Ions hitting the craft. Decelerate at the target system using a combination of MagSail and Orion. Aim for a top speed of say maybe 25% of c, although I'm fine with 5% (extended lifespan, remember), But 20 years to Alpha Centauri would be good. Although I'd trade it in for 50 years to Tau Ceti or Epsilon Eridani (much more promising places). I suggested the coil gun over at NewMars. The unfortunate thing about it is how long it takes to get up to speed without killing its occupents and such.

So I suggested launching Ion beams instead. Others suggested Aluminum pellets. Those could work to, if they could perhaps be vaporised to form high speed Ions hitting the craft.

Decelerate at the target system using a combination of MagSail and Orion. Aim for a top speed of say maybe 25% of c, although I'm fine with 5% (extended lifespan, remember), But 20 years to Alpha Centauri would be good. Although I'd trade it in for 50 years to Tau Ceti or Epsilon Eridani (much more promising places).

]]> By: roger http://www.universetoday.com/2008/07/08/how-long-would-it-take-to-travel-to-the-nearest-star/comment-page-3/#comment-46454 roger Mon, 15 Dec 2008 21:54:10 +0000 http://www.universetoday.com/?p=15403#comment-46454 OK. We now can accellerate a stream of particles to 99.99% the speed of light. granted, these particles have very low mass and are easily pushed around CERNs tubing. How much energy would it take to accelerate a larger object to those speeds. Also the G forces from just the curvature of the earth would be enough to destroy any device we send around. But I propose that we create an orbital TRACK, one that works just like a particle accelerator that pushes an object around untill we reach the right velocity then it opens upon on end to let it fly. We could get a robot or transmitter to a distent star pretty fast, however there would be NO way to slow it down. in fact something going the speed of light that had any mass to it at all would literaly pass straight through ANything unscathed. We would need on accelerator to throw and another at the destination, to catch. But heaven forbid we should miss. lol. see ya OK. We now can accellerate a stream of particles to 99.99% the speed of light. granted, these particles have very low mass and are easily pushed around CERNs tubing. How much energy would it take to accelerate a larger object to those speeds. Also the G forces from just the curvature of the earth would be enough to destroy any device we send around. But I propose that we create an orbital TRACK, one that works just like a particle accelerator that pushes an object around untill we reach the right velocity then it opens upon on end to let it fly. We could get a robot or transmitter to a distent star pretty fast, however there would be NO way to slow it down. in fact something going the speed of light that had any mass to it at all would literaly pass straight through ANything unscathed. We would need on accelerator to throw and another at the destination, to catch. But heaven forbid we should miss. lol. see ya

]]> By: householdutensils http://www.universetoday.com/2008/07/08/how-long-would-it-take-to-travel-to-the-nearest-star/comment-page-3/#comment-43460 householdutensils Fri, 28 Nov 2008 12:41:09 +0000 http://www.universetoday.com/?p=15403#comment-43460 We could always build a massive coil gun, preferably orbiting one of the outer planets. Build it in an elliptical shape, like a particle accelerator, accelerate a small craft to the maximum % of c we can get from storing power from nuclear generators and solar power in superconducting capacitors and then let it fly, using nuclear pulse propulsion or some other form of propulsion for additional thrust. Realistically, we can get a lot higher speeds and lower mass crafts by using robotics rather than manned voyages. This method reduces the problem of on-board fuel. It all depends on how much power we can store, and what velocity we can accelerate the projectile to. We could always build a massive coil gun, preferably orbiting one of the outer planets. Build it in an elliptical shape, like a particle accelerator, accelerate a small craft to the maximum % of c we can get from storing power from nuclear generators and solar power in superconducting capacitors and then let it fly, using nuclear pulse propulsion or some other form of propulsion for additional thrust. Realistically, we can get a lot higher speeds and lower mass crafts by using robotics rather than manned voyages.

This method reduces the problem of on-board fuel. It all depends on how much power we can store, and what velocity we can accelerate the projectile to.

]]> By: Tobias Holbrook of the Dragonfire http://www.universetoday.com/2008/07/08/how-long-would-it-take-to-travel-to-the-nearest-star/comment-page-3/#comment-38886 Tobias Holbrook of the Dragonfire Wed, 05 Nov 2008 22:22:36 +0000 http://www.universetoday.com/?p=15403#comment-38886 Intersting article. And even more interesting comments. Aside from the fact that you've neglected to mention beamed power, it's okay. But I'm sure that 80 year figure can be improved. Perhaps by launching the nukes ahead of the starcraft, or maybe by some other means. "I would love nothing more than the chance to travel alone in a spaceship to another star, " Agreed. Although I'd quite like to have someone with me on the Starcraft. Intersting article. And even more interesting comments.

Aside from the fact that you've neglected to mention beamed power, it's okay. But I'm sure that 80 year figure can be improved. Perhaps by launching the nukes ahead of the starcraft, or maybe by some other means.

"I would love nothing more than the chance to travel alone in a spaceship to another star, "

Agreed. Although I'd quite like to have someone with me on the Starcraft.

]]> By: asd http://www.universetoday.com/2008/07/08/how-long-would-it-take-to-travel-to-the-nearest-star/comment-page-3/#comment-38780 asd Wed, 05 Nov 2008 06:00:58 +0000 http://www.universetoday.com/?p=15403#comment-38780 well for the G forge thingy you can be put in a room filled with some sort of material that dampens the effect of the inertial forces... or some sort. easy to be done, and there are some results in achieving this kind of material, for example Asics (shoe manufacturing) uses some kind of rubber on which u can drop an egg from 3-5 meters and it won't break (the layer was just 1-2" thick). so it can be done the means of propulsion must be developed more. well for the G forge thingy you can be put in a room filled with some sort of material that dampens the effect of the inertial forces… or some sort. easy to be done, and there are some results in achieving this kind of material, for example Asics (shoe manufacturing) uses some kind of rubber on which u can drop an egg from 3-5 meters and it won't break (the layer was just 1-2" thick). so it can be done the means of propulsion must be developed more.

]]> By: Chip http://www.universetoday.com/2008/07/08/how-long-would-it-take-to-travel-to-the-nearest-star/comment-page-3/#comment-30008 Chip Wed, 20 Aug 2008 08:11:26 +0000 http://www.universetoday.com/?p=15403#comment-30008 "Imagine travelling 80 to 1,000 years to the nearest star, and then finding out there is absolutely nothing of interest there." You miss the point of space travel. The trip between the stars is the interesting part. I would love nothing more than the chance to travel alone in a spaceship to another star, even knowing I would die of old age before making it to that star, just for the chance to be out there, every day, watching the stars from outside of Earth's atmosphere, knowing I am that much closer to another star. If you have ever had the chance to look at stars through an actual telescope, not the internet pictures, taking the time to just look at some random name-unknown group of stars, it is fascinating. I am enthralled by the fact that I am looking at real suns live (minus light year distance of course). There is something about it that overwhelms. I am not one who would immediately plant a carbon copy of human society on another planet. What difference does it make what planet you watch TV on? It is the chance to leave this society behind and be out there with no one else except the stars that draws me like nothing else in life. Pick any one star, no matter how far, and head for it. Reaching it doesn't matter, the chance to be out there does. "Imagine travelling 80 to 1,000 years to the nearest star, and then finding out there is absolutely nothing of interest there."

You miss the point of space travel. The trip between the stars is the interesting part.

I would love nothing more than the chance to travel alone in a spaceship to another star, even knowing I would die of old age before making it to that star, just for the chance to be out there, every day, watching the stars from outside of Earth's atmosphere, knowing I am that much closer to another star.

If you have ever had the chance to look at stars through an actual telescope, not the internet pictures, taking the time to just look at some random name-unknown group of stars, it is fascinating. I am enthralled by the fact that I am looking at real suns live (minus light year distance of course). There is something about it that overwhelms.

I am not one who would immediately plant a carbon copy of human society on another planet. What difference does it make what planet you watch TV on?

It is the chance to leave this society behind and be out there with no one else except the stars that draws me like nothing else in life. Pick any one star, no matter how far, and head for it. Reaching it doesn't matter, the chance to be out there does.

]]> By: Jon Doh http://www.universetoday.com/2008/07/08/how-long-would-it-take-to-travel-to-the-nearest-star/comment-page-3/#comment-26025 Jon Doh Tue, 15 Jul 2008 00:40:04 +0000 http://www.universetoday.com/?p=15403#comment-26025 Maybe we need to learn to live on this planet before we go to another? Planet starbucks haha....drill for oil on planet exxon...kinda reminds me of several sci fi films where the lifeforms are called a disease or virus, they jump from planet to planet destroying each in the process and the only solution is to find another host. Did anyone mention suspension, cryonic or other? Wake up 20,000 years later orbiting a strange planet ... Maybe we need to learn to live on this planet before we go to another?
Planet starbucks haha….drill for oil on planet exxon…kinda reminds me of several sci fi films where the lifeforms are called a disease or virus, they jump from planet to planet destroying each in the process and the only solution is to find another host.
Did anyone mention suspension, cryonic or other?
Wake up 20,000 years later orbiting a strange planet …

]]> By: Chuck Lam http://www.universetoday.com/2008/07/08/how-long-would-it-take-to-travel-to-the-nearest-star/comment-page-3/#comment-25852 Chuck Lam Sat, 12 Jul 2008 14:24:12 +0000 http://www.universetoday.com/?p=15403#comment-25852 To: Peter K., While space is a near vacuum, I suspect there are chunks of unknown quantity and material within this near vacuum that can easily destroy a space vehicle. A couple of probes NASA has lost contact with over the years comes to mind. Another thought, for mankind to do any serious space traveling, it would be necessary to develop a means to exceed the speed of light several magnitudes. Attempting a trip to the Alpha C system, at just a fraction the speed of light, doesn't make much sense. To: Peter K., While space is a near vacuum, I suspect there are chunks of unknown quantity and material within this near vacuum that can easily destroy a space vehicle. A couple of probes NASA has lost contact with over the years comes to mind. Another thought, for mankind to do any serious space traveling, it would be necessary to develop a means to exceed the speed of light several magnitudes. Attempting a trip to the Alpha C system, at just a fraction the speed of light, doesn't make much sense.

]]> By: R Eccles http://www.universetoday.com/2008/07/08/how-long-would-it-take-to-travel-to-the-nearest-star/comment-page-3/#comment-25842 R Eccles Sat, 12 Jul 2008 04:57:47 +0000 http://www.universetoday.com/?p=15403#comment-25842 Maybe we could travel to other planets with our mind rather than our bodies. OOBE's anyone? Maybe we could travel to other planets with our mind rather than our bodies. OOBE's anyone?

]]> By: Robert Ryukyu http://www.universetoday.com/2008/07/08/how-long-would-it-take-to-travel-to-the-nearest-star/comment-page-3/#comment-25841 Robert Ryukyu Sat, 12 Jul 2008 04:51:15 +0000 http://www.universetoday.com/?p=15403#comment-25841 Thanks so much for the article and reader comments. Exciting visions. Always dreamt of such possibilities as a small boy. Unfortunately, nowadays, the negative consequences of global warming accelerate faster than the development of interstellar propulsion engines. Trying to be realistic, I only hope that there will be human astronauts after 2050 or so to board space ships. Thanks so much for the article and reader comments. Exciting visions. Always dreamt of such possibilities as a small boy.

Unfortunately, nowadays, the negative consequences of global warming accelerate faster than the development of interstellar propulsion engines.

Trying to be realistic, I only hope that there will be human astronauts after 2050 or so to board space ships.

]]> By: Derek Mathias http://www.universetoday.com/2008/07/08/how-long-would-it-take-to-travel-to-the-nearest-star/comment-page-3/#comment-25761 Derek Mathias Fri, 11 Jul 2008 00:25:12 +0000 http://www.universetoday.com/?p=15403#comment-25761 Here's my suggestion: Within two or three decades, we should have sufficient molecular manufacturing technology to create extremely efficient, small, light and highly intelligent robots, as well as small nanofactories capable of creating any object from patterns stored in computer memory. Sending them out to the nearest stars would take far less energy than sending humans. If a robot arrived at a suitable exoplanet, it could use the nanofactory to construct a laser receiving station (or similar device), as well as living accommodations for humans. The same technology that would allow the construction of the robots and nanofactories should allow us to disassemble human beings and reassemble them. This may allow us to store entire humans as digital information. We could then beam the information to the receiving station on the exoplanet. The nanofactory would reassemble the human patterns, creating exact duplicates of the original human templates, and those humans would have living accommodations already waiting for them. Of course that would still take a while: probably hundreds or thousands of years to get the robots to the exoplanets, then at least a few years to establish a connection with Earth (beaming info at lightspeed), and then a few more years to beam the human patterns to the exoplanets. By that time we'll likely have populated the entire solar system and probably won't resemble modern humans in mind or body much at all. So...forget it. At least for now. Maybe some AI will come up with a way to shorten the trip, so just wait a few decades and find out. Here's my suggestion:

Within two or three decades, we should have sufficient molecular manufacturing technology to create extremely efficient, small, light and highly intelligent robots, as well as small nanofactories capable of creating any object from patterns stored in computer memory. Sending them out to the nearest stars would take far less energy than sending humans.

If a robot arrived at a suitable exoplanet, it could use the nanofactory to construct a laser receiving station (or similar device), as well as living accommodations for humans.

The same technology that would allow the construction of the robots and nanofactories should allow us to disassemble human beings and reassemble them. This may allow us to store entire humans as digital information.

We could then beam the information to the receiving station on the exoplanet. The nanofactory would reassemble the human patterns, creating exact duplicates of the original human templates, and those humans would have living accommodations already waiting for them.

Of course that would still take a while: probably hundreds or thousands of years to get the robots to the exoplanets, then at least a few years to establish a connection with Earth (beaming info at lightspeed), and then a few more years to beam the human patterns to the exoplanets.

By that time we'll likely have populated the entire solar system and probably won't resemble modern humans in mind or body much at all.

So…forget it. At least for now. Maybe some AI will come up with a way to shorten the trip, so just wait a few decades and find out.

]]> By: Peter K http://www.universetoday.com/2008/07/08/how-long-would-it-take-to-travel-to-the-nearest-star/comment-page-3/#comment-25720 Peter K Thu, 10 Jul 2008 14:27:56 +0000 http://www.universetoday.com/?p=15403#comment-25720 MC, both ideas go kablooie. Space is a near vacuum anywhere you go, even in a nebulae. There are no meteor storms to watch out for in interstellar space. (Nothing to keep them together) It would be like watching out for meteorites while you are driving...not a major concern. The Milky way affects us here the same way it would outside our solar system. The heliopause affects atomic size particles, not spaceships. The Oort cloud is invisible mostly because "cloud" poorly defines it. It's far more tenuous than whales in the ocean. How many times have you dived in to land on one's back? I personally think it's hilarious anyone is worried about radioactivity in space. It's got to be a red herring or simply the worries of bureaucrats with little astro-education. There is a radioactive belt or two surrounding the earth even now. Space is filled with radioactivity. Nasty place. As described in one post, bomb detritus would spread to near nothingness in little time. It would probably take off from moon orbit anyway. Too big to launch from earth surface. And the blast absorbtion plate would have to be enormous? Where does that thinking come from? The blasts are smallish and continuous. It doesn't have to be a Hiroshima every ten minutes. And whatever distance from the ship that works, doesn't have to be just 15 metres away. I think anti-matter will probably be the answer that gets us there. Massive energy from smallest quantity, and lacking in need for extra-dimensional travel which will probably always remain a tantalizing theory at best. MC, both ideas go kablooie. Space is a near vacuum anywhere you go, even in a nebulae. There are no meteor storms to watch out for in interstellar space. (Nothing to keep them together) It would be like watching out for meteorites while you are driving…not a major concern. The Milky way affects us here the same way it would outside our solar system. The heliopause affects atomic size particles, not spaceships. The Oort cloud is invisible mostly because "cloud" poorly defines it. It's far more tenuous than whales in the ocean. How many times have you dived in to land on one's back?
I personally think it's hilarious anyone is worried about radioactivity in space. It's got to be a red herring or simply the worries of bureaucrats with little astro-education. There is a radioactive belt or two surrounding the earth even now. Space is filled with radioactivity. Nasty place. As described in one post, bomb detritus would spread to near nothingness in little time. It would probably take off from moon orbit anyway. Too big to launch from earth surface.
And the blast absorbtion plate would have to be enormous? Where does that thinking come from? The blasts are smallish and continuous. It doesn't have to be a Hiroshima every ten minutes. And whatever distance from the ship that works, doesn't have to be just 15 metres away.
I think anti-matter will probably be the answer that gets us there. Massive energy from smallest quantity, and lacking in need for extra-dimensional travel which will probably always remain a tantalizing theory at best.

]]> By: Chuck Lam http://www.universetoday.com/2008/07/08/how-long-would-it-take-to-travel-to-the-nearest-star/comment-page-3/#comment-25701 Chuck Lam Thu, 10 Jul 2008 12:26:42 +0000 http://www.universetoday.com/?p=15403#comment-25701 Great article! Great posts! Great article! Great posts!

]]> By: MC http://www.universetoday.com/2008/07/08/how-long-would-it-take-to-travel-to-the-nearest-star/comment-page-3/#comment-25691 MC Thu, 10 Jul 2008 10:49:51 +0000 http://www.universetoday.com/?p=15403#comment-25691 Are there any theories relating to what space would be like between solar systems? would it be more of a vacuum so maybe more acceleration could be reached? or maybe you would get stuck in the spin of the milky way outside of the protection of our solar system and never get anywhere... (random thought i know) Are there any theories relating to what space would be like between solar systems? would it be more of a vacuum so maybe more acceleration could be reached? or maybe you would get stuck in the spin of the milky way outside of the protection of our solar system and never get anywhere… (random thought i know)

]]> By: Ken in Shanghai http://www.universetoday.com/2008/07/08/how-long-would-it-take-to-travel-to-the-nearest-star/comment-page-3/#comment-25686 Ken in Shanghai Thu, 10 Jul 2008 09:14:11 +0000 http://www.universetoday.com/?p=15403#comment-25686 Thank You Stanton, I was thinking about your work on the Nerva & Phoebus systems when I read this. We could learn a lot by just looking at all the fantastic space technology that was developed 50 years ago. Thank You Stanton, I was thinking about your work on the Nerva & Phoebus systems when I read this. We could learn a lot by just looking at all the fantastic space technology that was developed 50 years ago.

]]> By: Stanton Friedman http://www.universetoday.com/2008/07/08/how-long-would-it-take-to-travel-to-the-nearest-star/comment-page-3/#comment-25663 Stanton Friedman Thu, 10 Jul 2008 02:02:23 +0000 http://www.universetoday.com/?p=15403#comment-25663 May I suggest reading the Chapter "You can get Here from There" in my new book "Flying Saucers and Science". The author has ignored the Nerva and Phoebus nuclear rocket engines for upper stages and the D-He-3 fusion reaction to provide 10million times as much energy per particle as in chemical systems.See John Luce and John Hilton paper. Far more efficient than Orion. Soviets have operated 3 dozen nuclear reactors in space for electricity production. At 1G it only takes a year to get to near c. May I suggest reading the Chapter "You can get Here from There" in my new book "Flying Saucers and Science". The author has ignored the Nerva and Phoebus nuclear rocket engines for upper stages and the D-He-3 fusion reaction to provide 10million times as much energy per particle as in chemical systems.See John Luce and John Hilton paper. Far more efficient than Orion. Soviets have
operated 3 dozen nuclear reactors in space for electricity production. At 1G it only takes a year to get to near c.

]]> By: Jon Hanford http://www.universetoday.com/2008/07/08/how-long-would-it-take-to-travel-to-the-nearest-star/comment-page-2/#comment-25646 Jon Hanford Wed, 09 Jul 2008 22:21:22 +0000 http://www.universetoday.com/?p=15403#comment-25646 Along the lines of Marcellus regarding Proxima Cen as a viable destination for humans, the star ( a red dwarf) much less luminous than Sol, is classified as a 'flare star' (as are most magnetic dwarf stars) capable of producing flares intense enough to create copious amounts of X-rays (see Wiki listing for Proxima Cen for details). Alpha Cen A and-or B would seem more stable, luminous stars with a better likelihood of habitable planets (or moons orbiting gas giant planets). In any case, a great article on interstellar flight & great food for thought. Along the lines of Marcellus regarding Proxima Cen as a viable destination for humans, the star ( a red dwarf) much less luminous than Sol, is classified as a 'flare star' (as are most magnetic dwarf stars) capable of producing flares intense enough to create copious amounts of X-rays (see Wiki listing for Proxima Cen for details). Alpha Cen A and-or B would seem more stable, luminous stars with a better likelihood of habitable planets (or moons orbiting gas giant planets). In any case, a great article on interstellar flight & great food for thought.

]]> By: Frank Glover http://www.universetoday.com/2008/07/08/how-long-would-it-take-to-travel-to-the-nearest-star/comment-page-2/#comment-25642 Frank Glover Wed, 09 Jul 2008 21:20:24 +0000 http://www.universetoday.com/?p=15403#comment-25642 " It would seem we need to return to imagination in our theoretical constructs or resign ourselves to being confined to the solar system." Some do: http://www.thespaceshow.com/detail.asp?q=968 http://archive.thespaceshow.com/shows/968-BWB-2008-06-24.mp3 (52.4mb podcast) http://www.aiaa-la.org/flyers/Adv%20Space%20Propulsion%20for%20Interstellar%20Travel%20-% As for the nuclear-pulse Orion, the Test Ban Treaty simply didn't allow exceptions for nuclear detonations in space that were clearly *not* weapons tests, so they had nowhere else to go with the concept. And "Imagine travelling 80 to 1,000 years to the nearest star, and then finding out there is absolutely nothing of interest there." Imagine doing the best telescopic study from this solar system you can, first. And possibly sending robotic probes after that, befor committing people...just like here. And define 'nothing of interest.' Some people (sadly) don't care what probes are doing on Mars at this moment. " It would seem we need to return to imagination in our theoretical constructs or resign ourselves to being confined to the solar system."

Some do:

http://www.thespaceshow.com/detail.asp?q=968
http://archive.thespaceshow.com/shows/968-BWB-2008-06-24.mp3 (52.4mb podcast)

http://www.aiaa-la.org/flyers/Adv%20Space%20Propulsion%20for%20Interstellar%20Travel%20-%

As for the nuclear-pulse Orion, the Test Ban Treaty simply didn't allow exceptions for nuclear detonations in space that were clearly *not* weapons tests, so they had nowhere else to go with the concept.

And

"Imagine travelling 80 to 1,000 years to the nearest star, and then finding out there is absolutely nothing of interest there."

Imagine doing the best telescopic study from this solar system you can, first. And possibly sending robotic probes after that, befor committing people…just like here.

And define 'nothing of interest.' Some people (sadly) don't care what probes are doing on Mars at this moment.

]]> By: marcellus http://www.universetoday.com/2008/07/08/how-long-would-it-take-to-travel-to-the-nearest-star/comment-page-2/#comment-25640 marcellus Wed, 09 Jul 2008 21:12:21 +0000 http://www.universetoday.com/?p=15403#comment-25640 By 2020 we should know whether or not there would be habitable planets around Alpha Centauir A and B. They are both very close to what our star, the Sun is. Forget Proxima. It is too tiny, and way too much unlike our Sun for humans too survive. If we can discover other "Earth like planets" within 1 to 2 centuries of space travel using the Orion method, we should go for it. Manifest Destiny By 2020 we should know whether or not there would be habitable planets around Alpha Centauir A and B. They are both very close to what our star, the Sun is.

Forget Proxima. It is too tiny, and way too much unlike our Sun for humans too survive.

If we can discover other "Earth like planets" within 1 to 2 centuries of space travel using the Orion method, we should go for it.

Manifest Destiny

]]> By: LLDIAZ http://www.universetoday.com/2008/07/08/how-long-would-it-take-to-travel-to-the-nearest-star/comment-page-2/#comment-25632 LLDIAZ Wed, 09 Jul 2008 19:50:22 +0000 http://www.universetoday.com/?p=15403#comment-25632 Yes I agree first lets settle our own backyard then figure out what the hell to do about our neighbors yard Yes I agree first lets settle our own backyard then figure out what the hell to do about our neighbors yard

]]> By: Bill Illis http://www.universetoday.com/2008/07/08/how-long-would-it-take-to-travel-to-the-nearest-star/comment-page-2/#comment-25617 Bill Illis Wed, 09 Jul 2008 16:26:40 +0000 http://www.universetoday.com/?p=15403#comment-25617 Imagine travelling 80 to 1,000 years to the nearest star, and then finding out there is absolutely nothing of interest there. Fuel is gone, next nearest star is another 80 to 1,000 years away. It seems to me that for Humans and all the other alien species out there, we are all stuck in our own little solar systems. Every 1,000 years, we will receive a communication that says ... ... "Hi, how are you. We are fine. Nothing really happened since our last communication 2,000 years ago. We received your communication 1,000 years ago and we are glad you are fine. I guess you are not coming to visit and we won't be able to visit you either." Imagine travelling 80 to 1,000 years to the nearest star, and then finding out there is absolutely nothing of interest there.

Fuel is gone, next nearest star is another 80 to 1,000 years away.

It seems to me that for Humans and all the other alien species out there, we are all stuck in our own little solar systems.

Every 1,000 years, we will receive a communication that says …

… "Hi, how are you. We are fine. Nothing really happened since our last communication 2,000 years ago. We received your communication 1,000 years ago and we are glad you are fine. I guess you are not coming to visit and we won't be able to visit you either."

]]> By: Joe http://www.universetoday.com/2008/07/08/how-long-would-it-take-to-travel-to-the-nearest-star/comment-page-2/#comment-25615 Joe Wed, 09 Jul 2008 15:38:53 +0000 http://www.universetoday.com/?p=15403#comment-25615 I think our first step is to colonize the solar system, that will give us better experience in developing faster propulsion systems. I'd say at least 50 to 100 years from now will be a more realistic attempt to send a probe to the nearest star system. I hope its within our life time. Joe I think our first step is to colonize the solar system, that will give us better experience in developing faster propulsion systems. I'd say at least 50 to 100 years from now will be a more realistic attempt to send a probe to the nearest star system. I hope its within our life time.

Joe

]]> By: Stuart http://www.universetoday.com/2008/07/08/how-long-would-it-take-to-travel-to-the-nearest-star/comment-page-2/#comment-25612 Stuart Wed, 09 Jul 2008 14:58:33 +0000 http://www.universetoday.com/?p=15403#comment-25612 Everyone needs to pause a bit and think about the motivation for the article. The article is a valid discussion of the distances and times it would take to travel to another star using diffenert technologies. Remember, around 200 years ago, a fast ship would take about 9 months to travel from England to Australia. Now it's about day in a plane. I often wondered about this very question - so thank you to the author. The article didn't assert to predict the future, only discussed the present times to open further discussion. It seems so simple at first - only four point something light years away - but we all know that is still a very long way. Currently, travel at, or remotely near, the speed of light is not realistic, so our fastest 'feasible' travel speed must be only a small fraction of light speed within the foreseeable future. There are obviously undiscovered 'faster' travel methods that we will hopefully discover in the near future, but others have decided to discuss the human challenges. I point to the technical, ethical and financial constraints that surround the present day discussions of travelling to the Moon or Mars to stress my point. One-way trips to Mars are contriversial enough, so I say again - thanks for the article; others needn't loose sight of the original purpose of the article was to simply discuss the times it would take using present technology, and to give us laypeople some 'perspective'. Therefore I suggest we should debate always, but not ovely slant the debate towards the technical challenges of humans travelling to the stars when the 'walk in the park to Mars' is proving difficult enough. Finally, a point I recall on this topic came up at school 20+ years ago. The teacher replied - it's not currently worthwhile to travel to the starts, because say you could build a ship today that takes 1000 years to get there - in 100 years, a much faster ship would be built (say it took just 300 years), so you would have traveled for over 100 years (1/10th distance) and then some more, when a newer mission would follow, which would 'pick you up' as they passed by, to save you wasting your time. and then the story repeats - so wait until the times are realistic - and you know what is out there... Everyone needs to pause a bit and think about the motivation for the article. The article is a valid discussion of the distances and times it would take to travel to another star using diffenert technologies. Remember, around 200 years ago, a fast ship would take about 9 months to travel from England to Australia. Now it's about day in a plane.

I often wondered about this very question – so thank you to the author. The article didn't assert to predict the future, only discussed the present times to open further discussion. It seems so simple at first – only four point something light years away – but we all know that is still a very long way.

Currently, travel at, or remotely near, the speed of light is not realistic, so our fastest 'feasible' travel speed must be only a small fraction of light speed within the foreseeable future. There are obviously undiscovered 'faster' travel methods that we will hopefully discover in the near future, but others have decided to discuss the human challenges. I point to the technical, ethical and financial constraints that surround the present day discussions of travelling to the Moon or Mars to stress my point.

One-way trips to Mars are contriversial enough, so I say again – thanks for the article; others needn't loose sight of the original purpose of the article was to simply discuss the times it would take using present technology, and to give us laypeople some 'perspective'. Therefore I suggest we should debate always, but not ovely slant the debate towards the technical challenges of humans travelling to the stars when the 'walk in the park to Mars' is proving difficult enough.

Finally, a point I recall on this topic came up at school 20+ years ago. The teacher replied – it's not currently worthwhile to travel to the starts, because say you could build a ship today that takes 1000 years to get there – in 100 years, a much faster ship would be built (say it took just 300 years), so you would have traveled for over 100 years (1/10th distance) and then some more, when a newer mission would follow, which would 'pick you up' as they passed by, to save you wasting your time. and then the story repeats – so wait until the times are realistic – and you know what is out there…

]]> By: John Mendenhall http://www.universetoday.com/2008/07/08/how-long-would-it-take-to-travel-to-the-nearest-star/comment-page-2/#comment-25610 John Mendenhall Wed, 09 Jul 2008 14:55:36 +0000 http://www.universetoday.com/?p=15403#comment-25610 We are thinking too small and too short term. Also Proxima Centauri is doo-doo. For another .17 light years, you may as well go to Alpha and Beta. Too short term: witihin the next 50 years, we should have effective immortality for humans through medical advances. That changes all the rules about how long you can take to get there. Too small: don't muck about with ships. Take a planet. Mars might be big enough. Either live underneath the surface or make an artificial sun. Plan B, consider taking the Sun and all the major planets. It can be done, it's the space tug idea on a grand scale. Well, that's enough mind boggling ideas for today. Remember, you heard it here first. We are thinking too small and too short term. Also Proxima Centauri is doo-doo. For another .17 light years, you may as well go to Alpha and Beta.

Too short term: witihin the next 50 years, we should have effective immortality for humans through medical advances. That changes all the rules about how long you can take to get there.

Too small: don't muck about with ships. Take a planet. Mars might be big enough. Either live underneath the surface or make an artificial sun. Plan B, consider taking the Sun and all the major planets. It can be done, it's the space tug idea on a grand scale.

Well, that's enough mind boggling ideas for today. Remember, you heard it here first.

]]> By: prospero http://www.universetoday.com/2008/07/08/how-long-would-it-take-to-travel-to-the-nearest-star/comment-page-2/#comment-25606 prospero Wed, 09 Jul 2008 13:47:39 +0000 http://www.universetoday.com/?p=15403#comment-25606 Even if we could travel close to the speed of light, surely this would be impractical. At, say, around 20,000 km/sec or faster, any subatomic particle would manifest itself as a highly enegetic cosmic ray particle with disastrous consequences. Even if we could travel close to the speed of light, surely this would be impractical.
At, say, around 20,000 km/sec or faster, any subatomic particle would manifest itself as a highly enegetic cosmic ray particle with disastrous consequences.

]]>