top 93 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] 118 points 9 months ago (39 children)

Found a calculator: https://www.calctool.org/relativity/space-travel

Assuming we want to accelerate at a constant 1g for half of the travel and then brake at 1g for the second half of the travel we would need 151 years to get there but only 9.794 years would pass on the ship. Depending on the mass of the ship we would need coupe million/billion tons of fuel (anti-matter).

  • source
  • hideshow 39 child comments
  • [–] 39 points 9 months ago (9 children)

    How can it take 151 years to go 150 light years when not close to lightspeed most of the time? I get the 9 year thing, but 151 years seems wrong.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 9 child comments
  • [–] 61 points 9 months ago (4 children)

    Smarter people than me on the internet calculate that at constant 1g you only need 2.5 years to get very close to speed of light. So I guess you accelerate fast enough and reach 'almost speed of light' very early in your travel and total time is almost as if you traveled at speed of light the whole time.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 20 points 9 months ago (1 child)

    The main advantage of keeping accelerating when you're at >90% of the speed of light is that it means you arrive faster in subjective time. You could take 160 years to get there and use ten times less fuel (or thereabouts), but the subjective travel time would go up by decades.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 19 points 9 months ago

    I just used the calc, it's closer to 152 years. Which I assume means acceleration at 1g for about a year to reach .999c, and deceleration for the same time.

    I just confirmed with dV= a*t, a year of 1g(9.8m/s/s) gets you just over the speed of light. I think it's more complicated than that, If I remember right relativistic speeds require more and more energy to accelerate so you can't ever "reach" light speed.

  • source
  • parent
  • load more comments (1 reply)
  • [–] 32 points 9 months ago (11 children)

    50% chance of being in the habitable zone

    Imagine sitting on a spaceship for 151 years just to discover your parents' bet was wrong

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 11 child comments
  • [–] 8 points 9 months ago (6 children)

    Just imagine sitting on a spaceship for 151 years to find out they got there first because in 151 years space travel tech has improved so much they can travel there in 35 years.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 7 points 9 months ago (2 children)

    Unless we figure out FTL travel that wouldn't be possible.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 7 points 9 months ago (5 children)

    What about accelerating 1g for 16 hours of 'day', then 8 hours of 3g 'night'. It would be one hell of a weighted blanket lol.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 9 months ago (2 children)

    I say have a spinny ship that does that with the shape of the ring. Some kind of parabolic bullshit I'm sure there's a way to get it to math without having to have a 1g ring and a 3g ring but that works too

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 9 months ago (1 child)

    The purpose of my idea is to average 2g without expecting people to function in 2g. Not just for the purpose of a weighted blanket

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 4 points 9 months ago* (5 children)

    And you'll only need about 320 million GWh per ~80kg person... plus 4 million GWh per kg of supplies, equipment and ship weight...

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 9 months ago* (2 children)

    So 340 PWh per person. A couple of guys with a static bike and a dynamo and that's it😜

    Note: the Earth receives 170 PWh of energy from the Sun in a year.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago) (1 child)

    Your statement makes things sound a bit confusing.

    To clarify, if you are inside the ship, 152 years will pass.

    Edit: Nevermind. Time travel is stupid.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 165 points 9 months ago (42 children)

    Cool lets pack up the billionaires and ship em over there.

  • source
  • hideshow 42 child comments
  • [–] 103 points 9 months ago (30 children)

    I like the way you think. I think the sun is closer though. Probably easier to get too. I don’t know I don’t work on space travel.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 30 child comments
  • [–] 74 points 9 months ago (22 children)

    Its actually easier to launch stuff out of the solar system than to slow stuff down enough to fall into the sun

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 22 child comments
  • [–] 25 points 9 months ago (8 children)

    I keep hearing that. Again - I don’t work on space physics, so forgive my ignorance on why. However- I’m good with billionaires taking as long as needed to get to our sun, some other maybe hospitable planet, or just dying in the cold of interstellar space while we observe a new holiday of them all fuckin’ off from terra firma.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 8 child comments
  • [–] 8 points 9 months ago (3 children)

    guillotines need less energy than a light bulb.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [+] -3 points 9 months ago (2 children)
  • [–] 4 points 9 months ago

    Are you trying to get us fucking killed??? Those types of speeds are capable of reversing the Earth's rotation, and turning back time! But even more likely is that the Earth will stop rotating and we'll all get crushed because of gravity vs centrifugal force, and the world will stop being flat and then we'll all fall off!

  • source
  • parent
  • load more comments (-1 replies)
  • [–] 3 points 9 months ago (3 children)
  • [–] 10 points 9 months ago (2 children)

    The launch technology is already taken care of. We still need interplanetary radiation shielding and a landing system that doesn't bounce them across the landscape like a ball, but that's no reason we can't start now.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 9 months ago (4 children)

    Is it because of our position?

    As in, is it fair to say in terms of potential gravitational energy, that we are basically outside of the “centre” of sun’s gravity?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 8 points 9 months ago (2 children)

    Not sure what you mean by the question, but it's because we're in orbit around the sun. We're already going way too fast, so you'd have to slow down, and slow down a lot.

    It's actually a kinda' fun challenge in Kerbal Space Program to hit the sun, and KSP's solar system is much smaller than ours (meaning everything is much closer and easier to hit).

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 9 months ago (1 child)

    I meant whether we are farther away from the sun or not. As in, would it take less energy to hit the sun if we started from Mercury.

    But now I realize that it’s our momentum given earths orbit. So I guess it would be harder from mercury cause it’s going faster?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 4 points 9 months ago

    Nope, it'd me much easier from Mercury. A higher orbit has more energy. A space ship has to speed up to increase it's orbit.

    Think of it like the old expression about what an orbit even is: You're still falling same as always, you're just moving to the side fast enough to always miss. Earth is 'missing' the Sun by a whole lot more than Mercury is 'missing' the Sun.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 2 points 9 months ago

    Basically because the planet the craft is being launched from is hurtling around the sun, you have to first cancel out all of that...let's call it horizontal motion. Its the same way that orbits around earth work, you throw the thing horizontally fast enough and it will just fall around the planet. Want it to stop orbiting? Now you have to slow it down enough that it no longer falls around the planet but falls onto the planet.

    Well while things are falling around (orbiting) the Earth, the Earth is falling around (orbiting) the sun. To launch something from earth and have it hit the sun, it first needs to get through all of Earth's atmosphere, achieve orbit around the Earth, then exit the Earth's sphere of orbital influence by increasing the height of the orbit so that the craft is no longer orbiting the Earth but orbiting the Sun, then decrease that orbit around the sun until eventually you get so close to the sun you fall into it rather than falling around it.

    Now, if we were a real space program planning a real mission, we'd probably do something frugal and smart like using gravity assists to make the whole endeavor more achievable (which is exactly what the Parker Solar Probe did!)

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 5 points 9 months ago (3 children)

    Hear me out. What if we get that billionaire submarine company to build 2 big rockets, each one full of billionaire. We'd say one is going to do an exclusive tour near the sun, and the other is going to that fancy new planet. No one can go on both, because whatever, just bs that they leave at the same time. And limited seats to the highest bidder.

    I mean the thing doesn't even need to work. Just take their money and ship them to their doom, then build public houses with their money and put on space YouTube to see them squirm.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 8 points 9 months ago (2 children)

    302 years later the ship comes back with a pile of gold and a note:

    "Delicious. Please send more."

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 9 months ago (1 child)

    Everyone likes gold. This would be a good movie!

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 2 points 9 months ago

    It's a reference to Amazing Stories from the 80's (specifically the episode Thanksgiving, Season 2, 1986), starring David Carradine. In it, Carradine and his daughter discover a mysterious hole/well on their property. When they lower objects down in it, something living below fills the bucket with gold, jewels, and notes like “thanks for the food, send more”. Eventually Carradine is like, fuck sending shit down there, I'm gonna go down there myself with an AR and take all the gold.

    When his daughter tries to pull him up it comes back with a bunch of gold and "Delicious. Please send more."

    It was really well made for the time, I seem to recall, but I was a kid so YMMV.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 3 points 9 months ago (1 child)

    Would be a funny conspiracy theory that this is how humans spawned on earth. Not evolution, but just some alien civilization shooting all their pedos into space, some of which were lucky to land on a habitable planet.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 68 points 9 months ago (2 children)
  • [–] 31 points 9 months ago (2 children)

    Unfortunately it is technically in New Jersey.

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 61 points 9 months ago (3 children)

    Is there another similar format for this meme, but without this dipshit in it?

  • source
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • load more comments
    view more: next ›