..... in any reasonable (on the scale of a human lifetime) period.
Either deliberately or through carelessness, you omitted one of the two fundamental parts of the point.
UFO / UAP
- Thread starter Koolpc
- Start date
- Status
..... in any reasonable (on the scale of a human lifetime) period.
Either deliberately or through carelessness, you omitted one of the two fundamental parts of the point.
- Joined
- 31 May 2016
- Messages
- 24,820
- Reaction score
- 5,368
- Country
Its fairly easy to do the maths and show that is incorrect.
4.6 Light years at 10% of the speed of light. = ???
Then given the argument is "NEVER", imagine 50% of the speed of light. No laws of physics are broken, even at 90% of light speed.
And the universe is both billions of years old, and fegging enormous.
By your logic, plenty of time and opportunities for near - lightspeed travel by objects with appreciable mass.......
So, where are they?
How long did 1970s satellites add? 600ms is the current delay for a single hop (1/2 a second !) And if you want a long distance conversation it's not going to be a single hop.
Last edited:
Two points:
You throw around figures like "10% of the speed of light" like it's adding 10% to your house value.
It's nothing like that.
And your 4.6 light years is as far as........... the first star.
Cosmologically, you haven't even twitched, let alone stepped out of your own shadow.
- Joined
- 31 May 2016
- Messages
- 24,820
- Reaction score
- 5,368
- Country
What is your definition of interstellar travel? I'm going with from star to star, which seems to be broadly accepted by those at NASA. There may be stars that are much closer in the universe and there may be "beings" already capable of interstellar travel. But that is not my point.
To say that mankind will never achieve interstellar travel is a bold statement. We've only been traveling to space for the last 50 years or so.
Except for the rocket equation.
- Joined
- 31 May 2016
- Messages
- 24,820
- Reaction score
- 5,368
- Country
I think they are working on that.
www.space.com
Beam me to the stars: Scientists propose wild new interstellar travel tech
"Chemical rockets that we use today, even with the extra speed boost from flying by planets, or from swinging by the sun for a boost, just don't have the ability to scale to useful interstellar speeds."
There is no avoiding the rocket equation under physics as we know it. Higher ISP means that you can move the numbers around a bit but you can't escape it. Those wunderrockets they're describing are needed to do slow transits.I think they are working on that.
Beam me to the stars: Scientists propose wild new interstellar travel tech
"Chemical rockets that we use today, even with the extra speed boost from flying by planets, or from swinging by the sun for a boost, just don't have the ability to scale to useful interstellar speeds."
are you kidding me?
i've taken off my socks and still haven't got to the square root of the problem.
Have it your way then: the nearest star.
FWIW, I still think we'll be gone as a species, long before we get anywhere close to achieving even that.
We can't even be bothered, as a species, to cease destroying (let alone clean up) the place we currently call home.
And even with your definition it is, on the grand scheme of things, a pitifully low bar.
On one hand, it would be a spectacular achievement.
On the other, something to be embarrassed about, rather than something about which to crow.
- Joined
- 31 May 2016
- Messages
- 24,820
- Reaction score
- 5,368
- Country
I don't disagree with any of those points. Then we go back to the probability of intelligent life existing on this planet in this Universe. I would argue, it's less than the probability that humans will develop the technology to send something interstellar. Then it's not a big leap to consider that some other intelligent being, with bigger brains, better adapted, having been around a bit longer etc. etc. may also be able to do it a bit better.
For me the economics are far harder to solve than the physics.
For me the economics are far harder to solve than the physics.
Whilst your optimism may rouse the trolls and get them cheering you on, the truth is that the nearest star or even the outer edges if our solar system are just too great a distance fir humans to endure.
No one is going to put their hand up for a 10'000+ years journey where death in space is all there is to look forward to.
- Joined
- 31 May 2016
- Messages
- 24,820
- Reaction score
- 5,368
- Country
It's actually 46 years at 10% of light speed, give or take a year for acceleration and slowing down.
Again, utterly fanciful numbers that you cast around without really thinking of their unrealistic nature.
- Status
