NationStates Jolt Archive

Do you think we will ever develop the technology to travel to other stars? Even if we do, how would we cope with the time it would take in an environment without gravity? Could the human body adapt? And when travelling at such high speeds, how would we prevent a ship from being damaged by space junk, and even just small particles of rock? Share your thoughts.

Personally, I have my doubts we'll ever make it out of the solar system. I don't think the human body could stand being in space for very long (I believe the longest a person has been in space is 9 months--does anyone know this for sure?), and even if it could, when a person got back, they would have a horrible time re-adapting to the conditions on Earth. If we developed a ship fast enough that the astronauts would not have to be in space for a huge amount of time, travel would still be extremely dangerous. If it collided with anything at that speed, the ship would, at the very least, suffer heavy damage. I don't think we'll ever make it far.

Never say never.
If weightlessness is so detrimental to the human body (could be, I'm no doctor), it's easy enough to build ships that spin to create gravity. Like Babylon 5.
Once upon a time it was impossible for man to fly. Once upon a time, the speed of sound was a destructive barrier to planes. It's gonna take a while, but human potential is limitless.

Even if we could find a way to simulate gravity, we still have the space junk issue. If we didn't travel fast enough for it to be an issue, gah, the eons! The first set of crew members would have to accept the fact that they would live out the rest of their lives on a ship in the middle of nowhere. The psychological strain of it has the potential to drive people insane. There are just too many things that can go wrong--it would never work.

Well, if there was a way to make a space junk shield, like that of a Cow Catcher on locomotives, then there wouldn't be many worries.

The real issue is how much time it would take just to get to about any other star is greater than the human lifetime. Even if we could approach light speed the time it would take would still be a significant issue. So either some form of hybernation is needed, creating ships large enough that a self-sustaining community can exist on it and live until its descendants reach the destination, or we enter into 'wormhole' theory territory to bypass spatial limitations. Of course, that is a whole new category of theoretical stuff that I don't even want to touch.

Even if we could find a way to simulate gravity, we still have the space junk issue. If we didn't travel fast enough for it to be an issue, gah, the eons! The first set of crew members would have to accept the fact that they would live out the rest of their lives on a ship in the middle of nowhere. The psychological strain of it has the potential to drive people insane. There are just too many things that can go wrong--it would never work.

Cryogenics.

FTL travel should not be rules out, either. Every week you hear of some revision to the theories of it. Or, failing that, circumvention of the laws, in the vein of wormholes for example.

The real issue is how much time it would take just to get to about any other star is greater than the human lifetime. Even if we could approach light speed the time it would take would still be a significant issue. So either some form of hybernation is needed, creating ships large enough that a self-sustaining community can exist on it and live until its descendants reach the destination, or we enter into 'wormhole' theory territory to bypass spatial limitations. Of course, that is a whole new category of theoretical stuff that I don't even want to touch.

Like the movie Event Horizon..oh god that movie was so freaky...

Well, if there was a way to make a space junk shield, like that of a Cow Catcher on locomotives, then there wouldn't be many worries.

Better yet super-electromagnets at opposite ends of the craft could shield the crew from harmful radiation.

I have a feeling that long distance space travel will never be all that long of distance. We might travel to the nearest stars. Even then it will take several hundred years at best to get there. The key to space travel will be genetic manipulation that extends life or cryonics. Scientists are already hard at work on both of these and one, life extension (maybe even the elimination of aging), is actually a fairly sure thing.

I think at the rate we're going, within 500 years machines will be updated every day, with something better. (faster, stronger...du du du du)

I have a feeling that long distance space travel will never be all that long of distance. We might travel to the nearest stars. Even then it will take several hundred years at best to get there. The key to space travel will be genetic manipulation that extends life or cryonics. Scientists are already hard at work on both of these and one, life extension (maybe even the elimination of aging), is actually a fairly sure thing.
Actually, on the time issue, some not-so-theoretical ship designs have been thought up. I read that there's one that should be able to get to the nearest star in only about 25 years. I can't remember much about that one, though. Another one that I found quite interesting was a sort of "light sail." Again, I can't remember much, but it's made of some sort of material that is propelled forward by light. It would be a big disk with living quarters in the middle. Takes no fuel, which is a bonus because, holy crap--for that distance? Yeee... I think it was supposed to take about 50-75 years to make it? Anyway, the sun would propel it to it's full speed before it got out of range, and once it's going, there's no stopping it. Only bad thing: can't stop it, can't get back. :headbang:

(I know it seems like I'm trying to revive my topic, but my internet just konked out for half an hour. When I tried to figure it out, turned out my dad was using our one dial-up line. Bumped me off... :mad: )

Edit: Oh, forgot to mention--I believe a few scientists either are planning to send up a prototype of the "light sail" or have already done it. It's a tiny thing, though, and the scientists aren't affiliated with NASA, so if you haven't heard about it, that's probably why. If you have, you've probably read Discover. :)

I'd like to say yes, but that's only based upon my wishes, not science.;)

Actually, on the time issue, some not-so-theoretical ship designs have been thought up. I read that there's one that should be able to get to the nearest star in only about 25 years. I can't remember much about that one, though. Another one that I found quite interesting was a sort of "light sail." Again, I can't remember much, but it's made of some sort of material that is propelled forward by light. It would be a big disk with living quarters in the middle. Takes no fuel, which is a bonus because, holy crap--for that distance? Yeee... I think it was supposed to take about 50-75 years to make it? Anyway, the sun would propel it to it's full speed before it got out of range, and once it's going, there's no stopping it. Only bad thing: can't stop it, can't get back. :headbang:

(I know it seems like I'm trying to revive my topic, but my internet just konked out for half an hour. When I tried to figure it out, turned out my dad was using our one dial-up line. Bumped me off... :mad: )

Edit: Oh, forgot to mention--I believe a few scientists either are planning to send up a prototype of the "light sail" or have already done it. It's a tiny thing, though, and the scientists aren't affiliated with NASA, so if you haven't heard about it, that's probably why. If you have, you've probably read Discover. :)

The vessel you describe is usually called a 'Light Craft' - which could ideally be boosted from the planetary surface by firing on it with a powerful laser, superheating the air behind it, to create instant thrust directly on the vessel's surface.

Whether or not THAT design, unmodified, would be versatile enough to ALSO run on the sun's light radiation is debatable - unlikely, since there is no material to 'superheat' outside of an atmosphere. More likely is combining THAT technology (or an atmospheric built vessel) with a Solar Sail, to effectively ride hydrogen streams from the sun.

Such a vessel CAN slow down at the destination, by simply catching the hydrogen stream of the destination star - and decelerating with it. Similarly, it could then return, by boosting off of that foreign star, and decelerating on our own sun's hydrogen.

Currently, the biggest obstacle to intersystem travel, is the impact of tiny particles. Within a solar system, at intra-system speeds, much of the damage of tiny particles can be mitigated by heavy sheilding. At the velocities required to travel between stars... some other technique would be required.

The most popular idea is the 'scoop'... effectively, an electromagnetic catchment field ahead of the vessel, designed to accumulate all the tiny particulates, and , hopefully, hydrogen as fuel - thus providing additional thrust material when needed (e.g. for deceleration, further acceleration, or maneuvering), and offestting the energy cost of generating the scoop field.

Better yet super-electromagnets at opposite ends of the craft could shield the crew from harmful radiation.


Yeah, that would work in conjunction with the space junk shield.

The vessel you describe is usually called a 'Light Craft' - which could ideally be boosted from the planetary surface by firing on it with a powerful laser, superheating the air behind it, to create instant thrust directly on the vessel's surface.

Whether or not THAT design, unmodified, would be versatile enough to ALSO run on the sun's light radiation is debatable - unlikely, since there is no material to 'superheat' outside of an atmosphere. More likely is combining THAT technology (or an atmospheric built vessel) with a Solar Sail, to effectively ride hydrogen streams from the sun.

Such a vessel CAN slow down at the destination, by simply catching the hydrogen stream of the destination star - and decelerating with it. Similarly, it could then return, by boosting off of that foreign star, and decelerating on our own sun's hydrogen.

Currently, the biggest obstacle to intersystem travel, is the impact of tiny particles. Within a solar system, at intra-system speeds, much of the damage of tiny particles can be mitigated by heavy sheilding. At the velocities required to travel between stars... some other technique would be required.

The most popular idea is the 'scoop'... effectively, an electromagnetic catchment field ahead of the vessel, designed to accumulate all the tiny particulates, and , hopefully, hydrogen as fuel - thus providing additional thrust material when needed (e.g. for deceleration, further acceleration, or maneuvering), and offestting the energy cost of generating the scoop field.
No, this one definitely moved due to light on its surface. I suppose they could get back that way, though in the article I read, they did say that getting back would be a pretty big obstacle. So I don't know.

But wait, we're forgetting the main concern ---

Laser cannons.

We need enough of these little bastards of doom to make sure that we can run through Imperial Blockades without any real problems. Because, you know how common those are.

human potential is limitless.
It's limited by the laws of the universe. You can't make a red green. You can't make a faster than light ship.

The vessel you describe is usually called a 'Light Craft' - which could ideally be boosted from the planetary surface by firing on it with a powerful laser, superheating the air behind it, to create instant thrust directly on the vessel's surface.

Whether or not THAT design, unmodified, would be versatile enough to ALSO run on the sun's light radiation is debatable - unlikely, since there is no material to 'superheat' outside of an atmosphere. More likely is combining THAT technology (or an atmospheric built vessel) with a Solar Sail, to effectively ride hydrogen streams from the sun.

Such a vessel CAN slow down at the destination, by simply catching the hydrogen stream of the destination star - and decelerating with it. Similarly, it could then return, by boosting off of that foreign star, and decelerating on our own sun's hydrogen.

Currently, the biggest obstacle to intersystem travel, is the impact of tiny particles. Within a solar system, at intra-system speeds, much of the damage of tiny particles can be mitigated by heavy sheilding. At the velocities required to travel between stars... some other technique would be required.

The most popular idea is the 'scoop'... effectively, an electromagnetic catchment field ahead of the vessel, designed to accumulate all the tiny particulates, and , hopefully, hydrogen as fuel - thus providing additional thrust material when needed (e.g. for deceleration, further acceleration, or maneuvering), and offestting the energy cost of generating the scoop field.

hmmm....I was under the impression that the light sail worked by reflecting the energy (in the form of photons) that is aimed at the sail, or that comes from the sun. Since photons have mass, the effect is of throwing a lot (and by a lot I mean an literally inconcievably giganitcally huge number) of little pellets at the sail, which when they bouce off, accelerate the sail in the opposite direction.

It's limited by the laws of the universe. You can't make a red green.
What are you talking about?
http://www.redgreen.com/
We already have!

Oh, those wacky Canadians...

:D

What are you talking about?
http://www.redgreen.com/
We already have!

Oh, those wacky Canadians...

:D
As hard as the Canadians work at defying the laws of optics, the fact remains that red on green is still not a redgreen :D

To keep a ship safe, u could use an electromagnetic scoop in front of the ship, tosuck up all that hydrogen as feul. Then, You rely on the matter of statistics to keep you safe from asteroids, rogue planets, and anything else more dense than ureyour

On the matter of time, any interstellar ship would travel at relativistic speeds, thereby experiencing time dilation, and so time would appear to be running slow on the ship from the outside, thus neatly ensuring that if you travel fast enough, your crew will get there. The only problem is that as you approach the speed of light, your ship would gain mass, and therefroe gravity, until eventually it overcame its own integrity and imploded. :rolleyes:

To keep a ship safe, u could use an electromagnetic scoop in front of the ship, tosuck up all that hydrogen as feul. Then, You rely on the matter of statistics to keep you safe from asteroids, rogue planets, and anything else more dense than ureyour

On the matter of time, any interstellar ship would travel at relativistic speeds, thereby experiencing time dilation, and so time would appear to be running slow on the ship from the outside, thus neatly ensuring that if you travel fast enough, your crew will get there. The only problem is that as you approach the speed of light, your ship would gain mass, and therefroe gravity, until eventually it overcame its own integrity and imploded. :rolleyes:
How much hydrogen is there in a vacuum? Not nearly enough to move anything bigger than a particle at sublight speeds.

A common misconception. If you travel fast enough, and use a fusion reactor for power, then there will be enough. Space is not empty. Just not very dense.

Edit: Though i do admit, we would need a huge boost in energy efficiency of our current technologies, so as not to waste power.

Further Edit: Plus, you would only be using the fuel to accelerate and decelerate. In the middle, you would be "coasting" as shown by Newtons laws of mechanics, and only using small amounts of power.

A common misconception. If you travel fast enough, and use a fusion reactor for power, then there will be enough. Space is not empty. Just not very dense.

Edit: Though i do admit, we would need a huge boost in energy efficiency of our current technologies, so as not to waste power.
Fusion doesn't work. You need a massive amount of an external force (i.e., gravity) to sustain it past a break even point. We have fusion reactors now. They couldn't power a house, much less a faster than light ship.

hmmm....I was under the impression that the light sail worked by reflecting the energy (in the form of photons) that is aimed at the sail, or that comes from the sun. Since photons have mass, the effect is of throwing a lot (and by a lot I mean an literally inconcievably giganitcally huge number) of little pellets at the sail, which when they bouce off, accelerate the sail in the opposite direction.

That's the difference, I believe, between the conventional Solar Sail, and the newer conception of a Light Sail.

The conventional Solar Sail, from what I recall, relies on currents of hydrogen - a natural waste product of solar reactions.

A Light Sail could operate on captured photons, but runs into several problems... one of which is: light doesn't just originate in one place. The light sail would, therefore, be bombarded by photons from other directions... not just the direction of the sun.

Also - even with no opposing 'friction' from empty space, it would take a phenomenal density of photons to make any noticable difference... since other factors (like gravity) would have a MUCH more noticable effect in, or even near, clusters of massive bodies.

The ONLY place where a Light Sail would be really useful, would be BETWEEN systems, in effectively 'dead space'... but those are also areas where you wouldn't get much coherent light - unless we also build large laser batteries to target and drive such vessels. Even so, the drive would attenuate with distance.

A bigger concern would be slowing down... since the Light Sail would be torn to pieces by normal system debris - thus, a method for decelerating BEFORE the vessel enters 'occupied' space, is required.

(And, of course, even those huge 'dead' areas aren't actually utterly devoid of material).

Designing a vessel robust enough to coast on hydrogen is a much more reasonable concept... since hydrogen density, even at the extremes of a system, would be sufficiently gradual to allow a deceleration, while sufficiently high to allow a noticable slowing effect.

Fusion doesn't work. You need a massive amount of an external force (i.e., gravity) to sustain it past a break even point. We have fusion reactors now. They couldn't power a house, much less a faster than light ship.

http://www.iter.org/index.htm

Its only at the design stage as of now, but its designed to be the last step towards building a true fusion reactor. The theory is sound, so its a possibility, but it might not work. Thats how science goes, im afraid.

Oh, and BTW, fusion is the second most efficient energy generation process that we know of. The first is theorised to be material accretion on a black hole disc, which also saps energy from the mass of particles.

http://www.iter.org/index.htm

Its only at the design stage as of now, but its designed to be the last step towards building a true fusion reactor. The theory is sound, so its a possibility, but it might not work. Thats how science goes, im afraid.

Oh, and BTW, fusion is the second most efficient energy generation process that we know of. The first is theorised to be material accretion on a black hole disc, which also saps energy from the mass of particles.
Fusion is HORRENDOUSLY inefficient. It produces less energy per mole of material than natural freaking gas. Fusion power is probably the single LEAST EFFECIENT source of energy imaginable. The only positive aspect of it is that it could be produced infinitely. Provided we created something with the mass of the sun.

Originally Posted by Talondar
human potential is limitless.
It's limited by the laws of the universe. You can't make a red green. You can't make a faster than light ship.
D'oh!

A human potential would necessarily be limited to what humans could accomplish.

How much hydrogen is there in a vacuum? Not nearly enough to move anything bigger than a particle at sublight speeds.

Strange question... by a vacuum, one assumes you mean 'space'... which is curious, because, if you think about it - our own sun exists 'in a vacuum', and is surrounded by waste hydrogen.

If you mean, how much hydrogen is there in the vast interstellar reaches? Then, yes - you'd be right, there is very little... but that doesn't matter, because you would gain MOST of your acceleration near to a solar body.

Also - the velocity at which you would travel through interstellar space, would greatly increase the relative 'density' of hydrogen.

But, ultimately, what it comes down to is: hydrogen stream craft are designed to be accelerated by one hydrogen density towards another. Anything else is just (hydrogen) gravy.

Fusion is HORRENDOUSLY inefficient. It produces less energy per mole of material than natural freaking gas. Fusion power is probably the single LEAST EFFECIENT source of energy imaginable. The only positive aspect of it is that it could be produced infinitely. Provided we created something with the mass of the sun.

Where did you come up with the concept that it would need to be as large as our sun?

Our sun is a fraction the size of other stars, and yet all seem to work on the same basic fusion principle.

Smaller stars ALSO work on the same principle.

I just wonder why you chose the phrase 'with the mass of the sun'?

Where did you come up with the concept that it would need to be as large as our sun?

Our sun is a fraction the size of other stars, and yet all seem to work on the same basic fusion principle.

Smaller stars ALSO work on the same principle.

I just wonder why you chose the phrase 'with the mass of the sun'?
Because you need an incredibly massive object to generate enough gravity to overcome the repulsion hydrogen atoms have for each other. A smaller star is still bigger than our entire planet.

Or, You need to turn the gas into the plasma, conatin it to a high density with magnets (as the gas is now ionised) and heat it up to fusion temperatures. Remember, temperature in a confined system will cause a massive pressure. Once the reaction is started, its just a case of feeding hydrogen in at a rate that sustains the fusion chain reaction. This is the principle of most theoretical and working reactors. No one has yet broke even on the energy put into the system yet, but that doesnt mean its impossible.

PS. I have a lecture very shortly (in astronomy, no less). Will catch up later.

Or, You need to turn the gas into the plasma, conatin it to a high density with magnets (as the gas is now ionised) and heat it up to fusion temperatures. Remember, temperature in a confined system will cause a massive pressure. Once the reaction is started, its just a case of feeding hydrogen in at a rate that sustains the fusion chain reaction. This is the principle of most theoretical and working reactors. No one has yet broke even on the energy put into the system yet, but that doesnt mean its impossible.
To turn gas into plasma, you need enormous amounts of energy. High temperature causes high pressure, but you also lose temperature as a reaction proceeds. The energy that we can produce is far less than the energy needed.

To turn gas into plasma, you need enormous amounts of energy. High temperature causes high pressure, but you also lose temperature as a reaction proceeds. The energy that we can produce is far less than the energy needed.

ah-HA! But once the plasma is created, it can be stored for free (energy wise) with superconducting electromagnets, which would actually be easier in the great heat sink that is outer space

ah-HA! But once the plasma is created, it can be stored for free (energy wise) with superconducting electromagnets, which would actually be easier in the great heat sink that is outer space
But the magnets themselves heat up, and would lose their supercondivity.

But the magnets themselves heat up, and would lose their supercondivity.

Thats why we have liquid nitrogen. :D

If space travel is going to happen, if Aliens are going to come, if we want to fing other species, it batter pappen fast. The universe is expanding, becoming cooler, more highly entropic, and less dense as we speak. This exact second is the closest we will ever be to another sentient species.
This is the golden age of space travel! Right Now!

Thats why we have liquid nitrogen. :D
Which impedes fusion reactions.

Which impedes fusion reactions.
yes, if you put the liquid nitrogen in the plasma. however, if you merely cool the magnets ('supercooled') with the liquid nitrogen, it all works dandily.

yes, if you put the liquid nitrogen in the plasma. however, if you merely cool the magnets ('supercooled') with the liquid nitrogen, it all works dandily.
The nitrogen simply draws off heat by convection. To do that it would have to be touching the magnets which would be touching the plasma.

Cryogenics.

FTL travel should not be rules out, either. Every week you hear of some revision to the theories of it. Or, failing that, circumvention of the laws, in the vein of wormholes for example.

What makes you think that wormholes exist, and even if they do, how could we control them? There would certainly be a random element, so they could pop up in the wrong place at an inoppertune moment. And cryogenics works far better on small children and doesn't last long!

The nitrogen simply draws off heat by convection. To do that it would have to be touching the magnets which would be touching the plasma.

The magnets don't touch the plasma. The massive magnetic fields created hold the plasma in place without any physical supports. The plasma is basically just a bunch of charged particles, and the magnets in the taurus shape hold the plasma in the center of the taurus-like the innerpart of a slinky that is streched into a circle.

The nitrogen simply draws off heat by convection. To do that it would have to be touching the magnets which would be touching the plasma.

Wrong all round, I'm afraid.

First - I believe we are talking about a micro-gravity climate... just to set the scene.

Second - although heat would be dispersed through convection WITHIN the coolant, the liquid nitrogen would actually cool the magnets through conduction.

Third - magnets wouldn't need to touch the plasma - and, in fact, that would be about the worst possible outcome. Plasma would be held in place by electromagnetic fields, not physically restrained by the magnets, themselves.

Fourth - in a space environment, heat would only be lost from the plasma, through radiation. If the magnets had reflective surfaces, they would absorb minimal radiated heat, while reflecting MOST of the reaction energy back into the plasma.

What makes you think that wormholes exist, and even if they do, how could we control them? There would certainly be a random element, so they could pop up in the wrong place at an inoppertune moment. And cryogenics works far better on small children and doesn't last long!

The key to the production of wormholes - in theory - would be collecting/producing large amounts of Exotic matter (i.e. matter with negative energy density). The laws of physics permit such matter (and we also have the Casimir Effect as a proof that negative energy density may exist). However, that doesn't change the fact that this is way too theoretical - i mean how could we produce that? Yet - it's the only known thing in the universe that would permit a desired FTL-like effect. Maybe people find out in a few thousand years :)

For now, we have to travel much much slower. However, i assume that speeds up to 0.1 to 0.2 c will eventually become feasible, and assuming that people will be genetically enhanced for the trip (longevity, resistence to osteroporosis etc.), i'd say it would be doable.