| ▲ | unrented7977 4 hours ago |
| The answer is actually yes if you're willing to wait. Interstellar travel is not impossible, no matter what anyone tells you. We know how, it's just wildly impractical. We've barely even left our own planet, and we've managed to throw a few chunks of metal out of our solar system so far. We lack the industrial capacity to build an interstellar ship, we do not lack the physics. |
|
| ▲ | stouset 4 hours ago | parent | next [-] |
| There’s a huge asterisk here. IIRC, it is possible to get anywhere in the observable universe in one human lifetime assuming 1g of constant acceleration. This does not permit you to slow down and halt at your target, which greatly increases travel times. It is also effectively a one-way ticket for anything other than objects in our immediate stellar neighborhood. If you turned around and returned to Earth after getting to an object 1,000ly away—still well within our own arm of the galaxy—at least 2,000 years will have passed on Earth. It’s probable that no civilization you know of would still exist, nor would anyone be able to understand your language. This isn’t even beginning to address the problem of running into stray atoms at 99.99…% of the speed of light. Or god forbid a handful of stray molecules. We also haven’t discussed the real elephant in the room which is the sheer amount of energy required to accelerate a human and human life support systems at 1g for several decades. |
| |
| ▲ | penteract an hour ago | parent | next [-] | | For the sake of pedantry, there are things in the observable universe which are increasing in distance from us by more than 1 light year per year. This means it's impossible to reach them unless the universe's rate of expansion changes. I think the Hubble volume is the region theoretically reachable; limiting acceleration to 1g would limit you to a slightly smaller region (only a tiny bit smaller, I think). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hubble_volume | |
| ▲ | WalterBright 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | What to send is DNA along with some sort of robot that can grow it into a man upon arrival. | | |
| ▲ | dTal 2 hours ago | parent [-] | | Maybe better to start with a woman... | | |
| ▲ | shevy-java an hour ago | parent [-] | | Not necessary. A cell (with a nucleus) has all the DNA required. You just need to have a viable system to build up a human from it. I think right now this is not possible, but this will be solved eventually. The question is, though: do future humans really want to do that? | | |
| ▲ | jazzyjackson 44 minutes ago | parent [-] | | Don’t be so sure. I hate to draw the comparison but raising a child in an artificial womb is probably at least as difficult as growing chicken wings in a sterile environment. A startup founder that wanted to grow meat pivoted to lab grown egg whites, in his words in order to grow a cube of solid meat any bigger than a centimeter cubed, you could not keep it sterile, it is too attractive of a growth medium. In the case of a chicken, it’s like the rest of the bird is needed to provide an immune system so the meat doesn’t spoil. Mothers provide more than a growth vat to their children, not to mention the immunities passed on in breast milk. To birth a child in a sterile vat, they would likely need to be kept in a bubble the rest of their lives too. |
|
|
| |
| ▲ | Scarblac 4 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Also, how much fuel do you need to bring along to accelerate a human and life support system and the whole craft including fuel, for a lifetime? Is it larger than a planet? | | |
| ▲ | m4rtink 4 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | Actually, even something as primitive as a NSWR (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_salt-water_rocket) can reach a good percentage of the speed of light after basically processing a comet for fuel. From the Wikipedia article: "The design and calculations discussed above are using 20%-enriched uranium salts. However, it would be plausible to use another design which could achieve much higher exhaust velocities (4,725 km/s) and use a 30,000-tonne ice comet along with 7,500 tonnes of highly enriched uranium salts to propel a 300-tonne spacecraft up to 7.62% of the speed of light and potentially arrive at Alpha Centauri after a 60-year journey." Sure, not 99% the speed of light or continuous 1 g acceleration but IMHO good enough for an oversized nuclear squirt gun. | | |
| ▲ | stouset 3 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | Still, this is many, many orders of magnitude short of what’s being discussed. Essentially the forefront of technology could get us to just barely speed past our nearest neighbor in one human lifespan. | | |
| ▲ | saalweachter 2 hours ago | parent [-] | | That's why we need to find a globular cluster with metal-rich planets, and take a generation ship over there. Sure, a thousand generations will live and die along the way, but once we get over there, you've got stars every 0.1 ly or so, and with very plausible future tech, you could navigate between them in a few years. You could set up a proper starfaring, interplanetary civilization, with tradeships either going back and forth between two neighboring systems, or winding on long, never-repeating routes, visiting a dozen or so star systems in a human life. (Most globular clusters appear to be old and metal-poor, and we haven't found a lot of planets there, and this only works if you find a globular cluster where ~every star can support a colony.) |
| |
| ▲ | metalliqaz 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | Imagine such a complex machine working without fail for 60 years. It's just not plausible in my view. |
| |
| ▲ | loudmax 4 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Since we're already in the realm of far out engineering, you could get the energy from a laser beam from a source orbiting the sun. Your spaceship would have some kind of array to capture the energy beam. This gives you energy, but I'm not sure how to turn that into velocity. Presumably you'd want some kind of ion beam emitter on board to propel your craft forward. Halfway through the journey, you'd turn the ion beam around to decelerate as you approach your destination. In the Arthur C Clarke novel Songs of Distant Earth, spacecraft pushed huge blocks of ice ahead of them to absorb stray interstellar dust. | | |
| ▲ | stouset 3 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | As you get going further and faster, this energy redshifts further and further making it less and less useful. Also there’s of course the problem of focusing a laser with that amount of energy tightly enough on an object increasingly far away. | | |
| ▲ | iso1631 2 hours ago | parent [-] | | And crucially ensuring that beam continues to run for billions of years. a few decades may pass for you, but not for the laser that's pushing you |
| |
| ▲ | m4rtink 4 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | So there is also the idea of a ramjet that uses interstellar hydrogen as fuel for fusion, which provides energy & propulsion: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bussard_ramjet Some recent findings do give it lower feasibility though. | |
| ▲ | __MatrixMan__ 4 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | Another option is to visit as many massive objects as possible on the way there, doing gravitational slingshots until you're half way, and then gravitational brakes on the approach. Of course now you're taking detours, but since certain amounts of fuel make the trip impossible, any workaround at all is an improvement. What's an extra few thousand years between friends? | | |
| ▲ | stouset 3 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | First, what “many objects along the way”? There are basically none. To do this requires many detours that significantly increase the distance you’re having to travel. Second, the faster you’re going, the less useful a gravitational slingshot is because you spend less time in the object’s gravity well. It’s a fun and useful trick within our solar system, but I don’t think the physics plays out well for interstellar travel. | | |
| ▲ | __MatrixMan__ 2 hours ago | parent [-] | | Stars is what I meant. Although upon further thought I think you're right. I guess the intervening stars are unlikely to be moving at helpful velocities for such a game of pinball, metric expansion being what it is. |
| |
| ▲ | m4rtink 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | Slingshots require very specific conditions and configurations of orbiting bodies that won't really work in deep space - all the Kuiper Belt/Oort Cloud bodiees are far too small and too far away to be usable. But assume for example that you don't care about how long it is going to take (you are an immortal cyborg, an upload living in the computer or a popsicle in hibernation & the AI is driving. Then you can just "island hop" between Kuiper Belt/Oort Cloud objects, never gaining any high % of the speed of light but always having the next body in your sights, not farther than a few decades or a couple hundred years of flight at most. You reach the body, refuel, repair, maybe upgrade and then off you go, to the next one. And eventually, you might be at you destination, with a fully fueled and repaired ship. It might just take like 20000 years for start to finish, but hey, you can use it for something productive like learning to play Go or something. :) | | |
| ▲ | __MatrixMan__ 2 hours ago | parent [-] | | You're right, I overlooked some important slingshot requirements. As for the longevity, I figure the ship can build a facility for growing settlers when it arrives. With no humans on board it can sustain heavier accelerations. |
|
|
| |
| ▲ | __MatrixMan__ 4 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Less if we just send some eggs and sperm and spin up a human on arrival. We can construct a larger life support system out of things we find at the destination. Or better yet, send some cancer cells so they can replicate during the journey, then switch from cancer mode to gamete mode for the final generation. That way they're fresh when you need them. You're gonna want DNA repair happening continuously, rather than all at once upon a thaw. | |
| ▲ | stouset 4 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | Yeah, I added that I think around the time you replied :) |
| |
| ▲ | tuveson 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | > IIRC, it is possible to get anywhere in the observable universe in one human lifetime assuming 1g of constant acceleration. Huh? You can’t go faster than light speed, and the observable universe is way larger than ~100 light years. | | |
| ▲ | p_l 2 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | Time experienced will be slowed down for the person in spaceship as you near lightspeed | |
| ▲ | pacman128 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | This is using the fact that at 1g acceleration, one will quickly approach the speed of light relative to its starting rest frame and time dilation will give the astronaut a _very long_ life relative to that frame. | | |
| ▲ | yrjrjjrjjtjjr 34 minutes ago | parent | next [-] | | The closer to lightspeed you get the more shit you would collide with. I think you would reach an equilibrium speed where drag balances thrust? | |
| ▲ | tuveson an hour ago | parent | prev [-] | | Ahh fair enough. Guess I wasn’t measuring the length of the observable universe in the frame of the astronaut… |
|
| |
| ▲ | AnimalMuppet an hour ago | parent | prev [-] | | > nor would anyone be able to understand your language. Greek and Latin are still understood. I don't know if the Chinese spoken today resembles Chinese from 2000 years ago, but maybe some of the written language would be understandable. Both Hebrew and Tamil are comprehensible that far back, and farther. Arabic goes nearly that far back. Of course, that's six languages out of... how many do we speak? | | |
| ▲ | ben_w an hour ago | parent [-] | | > Greek and Latin are still understood. Nerds specifically kept the archaic forms alive, but they'd also tell you that Latin and ancient Greek were not static for their whole existence (Attic != Homeric != Koine), and modern Greek is somewhat different from what is taught as "ancient" Greek. Treat Latin and (ancient) Greek like you would Quenya or Esperanto. If this were to happen with English, I'd expect us to keep Chaucer, Shakespeare, and enough to understand Victorian literature, but it's anyone's guess if modern English would survive at all. Arabic… kinda? It has an international standard form, but from what I've been told the language also comes with local dialects which can be difficult to mutually comprehend (though this is also the same with English just by going from central London to Sheffield). |
|
|
|
| ▲ | nonethewiser 4 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| >Interstellar travel is not impossible, no matter what anyone tells you. We know how, it's just wildly impractical. This was provocative and intriguing so I looked into it and this is my understanding of some of the options (theoretically). First, "interstellar" means between stars and the closes star is 4.2465 light years away (Proxima Centauri in Alpha Centauri star system) so I used that. c=speed of light - Chemical (Voyager), ~0.006% c: ~75,000 years
- Nuclear pulse (Orion), ~3-10% c: ~40-130 years
- Fusion (Daedalus), ~12% c, flyby: ~35 years
- Laser sail (Starshot), ~20% c, flyby: ~21 years (gram-scale probes only)
- Antimatter, ~20-30% c stopping: ~14-21 years; ~50% c flyby: ~8-9 years
Nuclear pulse surprised me in particular. My understanding is you basically just detonate a bunch of nukes to propel yourself. There are legal hurdles not to mention fallout, but it sounds like the physics of simply getting there in 40+ years (not stopping, mind you) is possible with todays physics. That's pretty amazing and I had no idea. |
| |
| ▲ | m4rtink 4 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | Yeah - and the mass fraction is also very good for Orion. You can basically build your ship from boiler plate (and you kinda have to) in a shipyard, no need for fragile ultra light stuff. Also past LEO you don't really have issues with fallout. So the only real hurdle is securing the supply of couple thousand nuclear bombs for the trip. But if you told people in 1903 that you can build a plane that will get 850 people 14000 km but you need 250 tons of kerosene to fuel it, they would also think you are insane (e.g. an Airbus A380). But over time, even with Orion, people will just get used to it. :) | |
| ▲ | throwaway12204 an hour ago | parent | prev [-] | | The Orion was proposed over 60 years ago I think. If we consider the low end your time estimates, we could theoretically have received data from Alpha Centauri by now. |
|
|
| ▲ | TheOtherHobbes 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| We also lack the biological knowledge to build stable closed ecosystems that last for years with minimal degradation of essential elements and processing systems, the engineering knowledge to build complex machines that last for years without any significant failures while being ablated by space dust and occasional rocks, and the political and psychological knowledge to keep a crew sane, focused, and functional. Apart from that - solved problem. |
| |
| ▲ | thangalin 2 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | > to build stable closed ecosystems Sealed terrariums? Unless you mean something more complex than plants, soil, sunlight, and water? https://laidbackgardener.blog/2019/10/14/the-worlds-second-o... "That means it has been growing inside its bottle with no additional air, water or fertilizer for 47 years." | | | |
| ▲ | PaulHoule 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | ... and once you get to the destination you have to build your whole industrial infrastructure from a tiny seed. It's bad enough to do on Mars (or an asteroid or other solar system environment) where you can get spare parts sent over in a few years and ask ground control for answers to problems, have them simulate things on Earth or in cislunar space and put a lot of engineers on it. The more I think about it the worse it seems in our solar system -- but interstellar travelers are truly on their own. |
|
|
| ▲ | stymaar 4 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| We don't lack the industrial capacity either, we mostly lack a good reason to spend these resources in that direction. And IMHO that's the main explanation for the Fermi paradox: we don't see aliens everywhere because they don't have a good reason to colonize other planets than their own either. |
| |
| ▲ | 7373737373 4 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | Would that not also imply that improvements in ease of access to space, increase of energy production and -price reduction all level off before it becomes easy and affordable enough that mere curiosity would suffice to make it possible, for ALL civilizations? | | |
| ▲ | stymaar 3 hours ago | parent [-] | | Due to science fiction people tend to forget how miserable life in space is. Nobody would chose to sacrifice themselves and their descendants (because that's what such an expedition is about), for mere curiosity. And nobody would fund an expedition that will not reach destination before multiple hundreds of years, even if the said expedition doesn't consume the entire industrial output of a major nation. Space is BIG. | | |
| |
| ▲ | kakacik an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Pure race long term survival, any sane civilization knows very well a single space item hurling fast enough can wipe out all conplex life on planet. Or vulcanoes, tectonics etc. Also every star eventually goes down, usually pretty violently (but thats properly a long term concern). Its not 'if' question, just 'when'. You cant be space faring civilization and not know this. | | |
| ▲ | throwaway12204 37 minutes ago | parent [-] | | Most of the theories assume that aliens want to spread out as much as possible. But perhaps they are satisfied with a second star system as "backup"? Maybe they even live inside asteroids or ships orbiting a dwarf star, because they are mostly in a Matrix-like existence and don't have much of a physical life? If someone provided a matrix world where you could live your dream life, I think a lot of us would choose to live in it. It would be so much better than real life. Our physical bodies could be maintained by robots, providing us with the perfect mix of sustenance and physical exercise to increase our life spans. Your body would eat healthy, but your mind would experience whatever food you would like. |
| |
| ▲ | mytailorisrich 4 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | We do lack the technological capacity. Travelling to another star would require a fully self-contained spaceship with energy, life support, food, medical facilities, even production facilities able to function for centuries or millenia. We simply don't know how to do that. | | |
| ▲ | stymaar 3 hours ago | parent [-] | | Yes, we don't know how to do that, but we don't know how to build hundreds of aircraft carriers per year right now either, yes the US has done the later in WW2 and would probably be able to do it again should it be needed in an existential war. With a sustained nationwide effort comparable to WW2 we could most likely send a spaceship out if the solar system in ten years or so. But why would anyone do that? | | |
| ▲ | mytailorisrich 3 hours ago | parent [-] | | Building hundreds of aircraft carriers a year is an issue of scale, so of money and allocation of resources (assuming we have the manpower). But what I mentioned is more profoundly that we simply don't know how to even build one. It's knowledge and technology which are lacking. Typical these things fall into one, two, many. Can you build one, two, many? These are very different propositions. One means you know understand how to do it, mostly. Two means you can repeat it, so you do understand it, it wasn't a fluke. Many is scaling the process. | | |
| ▲ | stymaar 2 hours ago | parent [-] | | Scaling is a technology of its own (and it's often the hardest part). |
|
|
| |
| ▲ | iso1631 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | Once it becomes cheap enough then religious or similar cults will do it, and the cost of doing isn't a great deal more than colonising the solar system where are are economic benefits. That assumes reaching 5 light years in say 50 years However once it's done a few times, then it can't be stopped. If you're going at say 1/1000th of the speed of light (50 years to travel, 450 years to settle and build the next wave is 1% the speed of light) then your successor species will have colonised the galaxy in 100 million years, and we know that hasn't happened. |
|
|
| ▲ | squidmaster 15 minutes ago | parent | prev [-] |
| [dead] |