Do we have the "stuff" to travel beyond our solar system?

[Adenosis]

(19-02-2013 11:38 PM)Cardinal Smurf Wrote:  

(19-02-2013 10:43 PM)Aspchizo Wrote:  We would need a shield on the front of the space craft.

Physical or energy? Would magnetic shielding do the trick? But then, that sounds energy expensive...

A very thick sheet of some material might do the trick, but that sheet would be eaten away at. The best method would be to generate a magnetic field that would deflect the incoming high energy light waves.

[DeepThought]

(19-02-2013 10:43 PM)Aspchizo Wrote:  Just thought of another problem with travelling to another star system.

The faster we go, the more we should compress the light that comes from the star we are travelling towards. So the faster we travel, the more energy the light bombarding the ship has. This isn't a problem for speeds we are familiar with now, but then again speeds we are familiar with now won't get us to another star system in good time.

If we were to travel half the speed of light, or at any decent rate, we might have to account for the change in light energy from our destination star system. I can imagine humans creating a ship, then forgetting to account for the shift of light energy, light shifting to x-rays and gamma rays would tear the ship apart or at the very least would cause havoc on our cells in our bodies. We would need a shield on the front of the space craft.

Light isn't an issue. The speed of light doesn't change no matter how fast you travel. The shielding already would have to be good enough to withstand cosmic rays - the most energetic light. The pusher plate of the super orion is good enough to sheild from small nuclear blasts. Once the ship is done accelerating the pusher plate could be oriented in the direction of travel so it provides the greatest protection from impacts and radiation.

Micro-meteor impacts are much more of a concern. Especially at 10% light speed. The super Orion would not go faster than that.

The Super Orion has ~3,000,000-4,000,000 tonnes for the ship excluding mass used for fuel. That would allow for thick shielding. Usually water tanks, storage rooms, and coolant tanks would be placed around the outside to shield the main crew quarters.

[Adenosis]

(22-02-2013 01:25 AM)DeepThought Wrote:  

(19-02-2013 10:43 PM)Aspchizo Wrote:  Just thought of another problem with travelling to another star system.

The faster we go, the more we should compress the light that comes from the star we are travelling towards. So the faster we travel, the more energy the light bombarding the ship has. This isn't a problem for speeds we are familiar with now, but then again speeds we are familiar with now won't get us to another star system in good time.

If we were to travel half the speed of light, or at any decent rate, we might have to account for the change in light energy from our destination star system. I can imagine humans creating a ship, then forgetting to account for the shift of light energy, light shifting to x-rays and gamma rays would tear the ship apart or at the very least would cause havoc on our cells in our bodies. We would need a shield on the front of the space craft.

Light isn't an issue. The speed of light doesn't change no matter how fast you travel. The shielding already would have to be good enough to withstand cosmic rays - the most energetic light. The pusher plate of the super orion is good enough to sheild from small nuclear blasts. Once the ship is done accelerating the pusher plate could be oriented in the direction of travel so it provides the greatest protection from impacts and radiation.

Micro-meteor impacts are much more of a concern. Especially at 10% light speed. The super Orion would not go faster than that.

The Super Orion has ~3,000,000-4,000,000 tonnes for the ship excluding mass used for fuel. That would allow for thick shielding. Usually water tanks, storage rooms, and coolant tanks would be placed around the outside to shield the main crew quarters.

I never said anything about the speed of light changing, and yes light energy would be a problem if we travelled at high speeds. The speed of light is not dependant on your motion through space, however the energy of the light (the wavelength/frequency) IS dependant on your motion through space relative to the source of the light.

Blueshift: Moving towards the source of the light compresses the wavelength, increasing the relative energy of the light.
Redshift: Moving away from the source of the light stretches the wavelength, decreasing the relative energy of the light.

[earmuffs]

Space travel, certainly space travel beyond the inner planets, is fucking stupid.

[Phaedrus]

(22-02-2013 03:13 AM)earmuffs Wrote:  Space travel, certainly space travel beyond the inner planets, is fucking stupid.

Thank you for your well-reasoned, helpful contribution, muffs! Your quality is right up there with the likes of Egor, it's so good.

[earmuffs]

(22-02-2013 03:15 AM)Phaedrus Wrote:  

(22-02-2013 03:13 AM)earmuffs Wrote:  Space travel, certainly space travel beyond the inner planets, is fucking stupid.

Thank you for your well-reasoned, helpful contribution, muffs! Your quality is right up there with the likes of Egor, it's so good.

Because Phaedrus I feel like a broken record when it comes to this topic (just ask Filox).
People are blinded by school boy fantasy and don't see the giant slap to the face reality right in front of their clouded vision.

aka, there's no point arguing.

[Phaedrus]

And I would argue that you don't understand numbers, nor have a sense of scale.

[earmuffs]

(22-02-2013 03:20 AM)Phaedrus Wrote:  And I would argue that you don't understand numbers, nor have a sense of scale.

And I would slap you in the face with a fish for being a fucking moron.

Here's something for scale, it would take us traveling at a realistic speed, around 22,000 years to get to the NEAREST star (after the sun of course).
22,000. Once you get there there is absolutely no guarentee of an earth like planet (and note that Earth hasn't always been so inhabitable). Also note that humans are very fragile. The next star after that is then another 22,000 years.

[ClydeLee]

I was just watching an episode of The Cosmos... The one on space traveling.

Sagan mentioned there has been an existing design of building giant nuclear powered space stations that can be used to launch ship from space. It has been pretty much put down as laws limiting using nuclear power in space.

He compared the idea to Da Vinci's creation of flying machine designs that just weren't buildable due to the tech but were well designed.

While it might not be close yet, I think the ability is there; coming back.. Probably not. It may require having generations of those who took off to actually get there, unless hyperbolic tech is established.

[earmuffs]

(22-02-2013 03:28 AM)ClydeLee Wrote:  I was just watching an episode of The Cosmos... The one on space traveling.

Sagan mentioned there has been an existing design of building giant nuclear powered space stations that can be used to launch ship from space. It has been pretty much put down as laws limiting using nuclear power in space.

He compared the idea to Da Vinci's creation of flying machine designs that just weren't buildable due to the tech but were well designed.

While it might not be close yet, I think the ability is there; coming back.. Probably not

The problem is not the vehical (though it would need to be very large), we certainly have the technology and perhaps the resources to do it.
The problem is the 22,000 years between here and there. The problem is what do we do when we get there. The problem is who's paying for this? nobody benefits from it so nobody will pay for it.
The problem is living on a 'space ship' for 22,000 years. Water, oxygen, fuel, food (though food would be the easiest), medicine etc...

It is not logistically plausable and a stupid fucking idea.