Right. What do you think is the best way for humans to reach Alpha Centauri, and other stars? I vote for Anti-Matter Annihilation thrusters.
I'm not saying it's impossible, since I'm not a dumbdumb, but I am saying that the laws of physics prevent ftl travel for any conventional spacecraft. (Shut up about the Alcubierre Drive). The crap on earth needs fixing, but It's a reason to go out, because if things go to sh¿t on earth, we're stuffed because we only inhabit this planet and not any other.Our knowledge on space is new at best. We need to fix our own shit on our own planet first before we have any rights to venture out into space, IMO.
Though I'd argue we find some FTL technology at some point down the road within the course of 200-300 years.
I'm fairly certain I said 'Shut up about the Alcubierre Drive' ._.By warp drive, my dear boy.
There is no friction in space, so you could speed up near the sun, and your velocity would carry you to the target. Solar sails have been calculated as being able to get to 25% Lightspeed. For comparison, The fastest object created by humans is less than 1% lightspeed. There is a problem with stopping though.No Star no thrust
you can get the energy from solar panels, gas is light and can be compacted easily and Ion drives can get to hundereds of thousands of miles an hour, also, again, There is no drag in space. Get to a certain speed, you'll stay at that speed unless something alters it.You need gas and the energy
There's a reason they're on the bottom of the list.Conventional thrusters: Are you kidding??
Our current understanding of the laws of physics, yes. Nothing is set in stone. Our understanding of the universe are constantly and exponentially expanding as the years go.I'm not saying it's impossible, since I'm not a dumbdumb, but I am saying that the laws of physics prevent ftl travel for any conventional spacecraft. (Shut up about the Alcubierre Drive). The crap on earth needs fixing, but It's a reason to go out, because if things go to sh¿t on earth, we're stuffed because we only inhabit this planet and not any other.
Our current understanding of the laws of physics, yes. Nothing is set in stone. Our understanding of the universe are constantly and exponentially expanding as the years go.
500 years ago people thought the Earth was the center of the universe. Now it's common knowledge that that's a load of crap. It'll only be a matter of time before Einstein is proven to be either not entirely correct or is lacking something in his equation. Or they find something outside of that equation.
Who knows. Only time will tell.
Who says that?
Our current understanding of physics make FTL travel impossible as far as human knowledge/understanding goes. However, that doesn't mean you should make them absolute laws. Our species is proven wrong too often to make it a viable mindset.Let's start with the basics: It is not good to introduce the concept of the mass M = m / sqrt(1 - v^2/c^2) of a moving body for which no clear definition can be given. It is better to introduce no other mass concept than the ’rest mass’ m. Instead of introducing M it is better to mention the expression for the momentum and energy of a body in motion. — Albert Einstein in letter to Lincoln Barnett, 19 June 1948 (quote from L. B. Okun (1989), p. 42)
The internal structure of particles does not change in any way when they travel with constant speed, and hence it makes no sense to attribute a different mass to them. Explaining that you can not travel faster than the speed of light because you will be infinitely heavy does therefore not answer the question. Furthermore, if solving relativistic equations of motion is your daily job, as is mine, the concept of relativistic mass does not make your life easier. Not at all. If someone would insist on a simple explanatinon I would settle for "The Lorentz factor is part of the equations of motion, and as a consequence you need an infinite amount of energy to reach the speed of light".
But let's not spoil all the fun. There are 'things' than actually can travel faster than the speed of light. For example the light of a lighthouse can sweep faster than the speed of light given sufficient distance. But thats too simple to be interesting. Intellectually far more challenging is the concept of quantum entanglement. If you are interested in the combination of 'faster than light' and 'proven to be true' this is your field. But I have to warn you that 'what it is' that can travel faster than the speed of light is not easy to understand.
~Some random bloke on the internet
This site is badly constructed and total overloaded with unnecessary information. The creators of the website have no idea how you introduce people in a topic and clearly too much time. Can you give me a brief crash course of how atomic rockets suppose to work.I do not know if this is a necropost, but I hope will be forgiven since I like this thread.
If we are discussing space travel and rocketry, there is a site that is fun yet informative on the topics. @Leo Whitepaw and @Joni , you will like this:
www.projectrho.com: Atomic Rockets - Atomic Rockets
You all listed many propulsion systems for space travel, some currently practical while others are more theoretical. One aspect of designing an interstellar spacecraft I do not see here is heat management. All the propulsion system mentioned here would generate an extraordinary amount of heat. In atmosphere, it is relatively to easy to dissipate the heat. Note that a jet engines on Earth cool eventually left to their own devices. This partially because the air helps immensely with heat radiation. In the near vacuum of space, it more difficult for rocket engines to cool themselves since the vacuum acts as a high efficient insulator around the spacecraft. As a result, the heat from the rocket engines and other technological processes keeping the spacecraft functional and habitable builds up since it can not be radiated away. Left unchecked, the heat will eventually damage the spacecraft's systems and fry the the crew alive. With more energetic propulsion systems like nuclear fission, nuclear fusion, or antimatter rockets, the heat may even cause the spacecraft itself to be vaporized.
To quote Atomic Rockets:
"Heat management is a vital part of the design and operation of a space vessel ... There are two options for dealing with waste heat ... radiators and heat sinks. If the waste heat is not dealt with, it would rapidly fry the ship and crew."
Internal heat sinks in spacecraft can only absorb but so much heat. Radiators make maneuvering the spacecraft harder and need to be proportionately bigger as your increase the heat output of the propulsion system. Cruising in space once your spacecraft has reached a certain speed as opposed leaving the engine on the accelerate throughout the entire journey to could help ameliorate some these difficulties, but some serious technological consideration would have to given to active heat management measures.
That is the introduction page and, yes, they could step their web design game up a notch, but there is much technical detail there.This site is badly constructed and total overloaded with unnecessary information. The creators of the website have no idea how you introduce people in a topic and clearly too much time. Can you give me a brief crash course of how atomic rockets suppose to work.
We are talking about physically reaching the Alpha Centauri system, which is about 4 light-years distant.Reaching by way of physical contact or establishing communication?