Neversummer Posted August 26, 2016 Share Posted August 26, 2016 9 minutes ago, Kragar said: So, lowering expectations and keeping things simple, if it were possible to average 100,000 mph (876 million miles per yr) over the course of the 4LY, it would take 26838 years. I think we'll need to look at nuclear options, like @Ghostsof1915 showed us. Damn ... makes us human beings look so dumb and low on the evolutionary scale. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Standing_Tall#37 Posted August 26, 2016 Share Posted August 26, 2016 2 hours ago, Kragar said: I'll get my math nerd on and gave it a try. I did get way more, 263K years. 40 light-mins = 0.67 light-hrs = 0.0278 light days = 0.000076 light years, which took the probe 5 years to travel, which means 0.000015 LY traveled per year. To travel 4 LY at 0.000015 LY/year, means 262800 years. Of course, that estimate duplicates the acceleration times, so the 263K years is too high. I thought about trying to take this from another direction, but the orbital mechanics take this well beyond my skills. The probe got over 164,000 mph as it approached Jupiter. I couldn't find out how fast it was going after it left Earth. Was interested to learn about how it orbited the sun for two years before heading off to Jupiter, just so it could get a gravity boost from Earth on the way out. So, depending on how one looks at it, most of that 40 light minutes was traveled in 3 years, not 5. The probe just had a 2 year-long running start. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Juno_(spacecraft) So, lowering expectations and keeping things simple, if it were possible to average 100,000 mph (876 million miles per yr) over the course of the 4LY, it would take 26838 years. I think we'll need to look at nuclear options, like @Ghostsof1915 showed us. Thank you, that math seems to be what I'd expect. And yes lol there's no way a petroleum based fuel would get us far. Either nuclear or the force or something that we haven't discovered or are aware of yet would be needed. It's to bad we're so focused on religion, cruelty to animals and what celebrities are doing to advance technology or our knowledge. And I know it's hardly worthy but +1 for the time and effort you put into this. I'm just a country bumpkin who probably wouldn't have figured that out on my own. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alflives Posted August 26, 2016 Share Posted August 26, 2016 10 minutes ago, Standing_Tall#37 said: Thank you, that math seems to be what I'd expect. And yes lol there's no way a petroleum based fuel would get us far. Either nuclear or the force or something that we haven't discovered or are aware of yet would be needed. It's to bad we're so focused on religion, cruelty to animals and what celebrities are doing to advance technology or our knowledge. And I know it's hardly worthy but +1 for the time and effort you put into this. I'm just a country bumpkin who probably wouldn't have figured that out on my own. Country bumpkins - farmers - are (IMHAO) a very inventive group. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Standing_Tall#37 Posted August 27, 2016 Share Posted August 27, 2016 1 hour ago, Alflives said: Country bumpkins - farmers - are (IMHAO) a very inventive group. Well in my case, when you live 116km from a major city, you have to make things work. Although I am a red-sealed electrician by trade, but find peace in how I was raised..lots of animals and lots of kids around. Then in the winter... She's work and outdoor hockey+ living and dying with the Canucks in the deep parts of winter lol. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
derr12 Posted August 27, 2016 Share Posted August 27, 2016 Could do nuclear powered ion propulsion and get there in pretty short order. Would have to be a flyby cuz slowing down takes as long as speeding up. I just hope it's Twin ion engines so they can call it a tie-fighter Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Heretic Posted August 27, 2016 Share Posted August 27, 2016 On 8/24/2016 at 0:09 PM, Shift-4 said: It would still take thousands of years to get there with current technology. A few decades is departure time. http://www.universetoday.com/15403/how-long-would-it-take-to-travel-to-the-nearest-star/ In short, at a maximum velocity of 56,000 km/h, Deep Space 1 would take over 81,000 years to traverse the 4.24 light years Edit: if you keep reading my link other methods are 18,000 and 19,000 years. In other words, a faster ship will over take it a hundred years or so after it left... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RUPERTKBD Posted August 28, 2016 Share Posted August 28, 2016 On 8/26/2016 at 7:36 AM, Standing_Tall#37 said: 23 hours ago, Heretic said: In other words, a faster ship will over take it a hundred years or so after it left... This is basically it. There's little point in attempting to travel there with current technology. A generational ship would be obsolete as soon as a better mode of propulsion was achieved by humanity. (Not sure why this post included the one by Standing_Tall) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Realtor Rod Posted August 28, 2016 Share Posted August 28, 2016 How long to travel there at our current top speeds? Haha, I just read one post above. 80,000 years... who cares if there is another planet out there? We are never getting there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jimayo Posted August 29, 2016 Share Posted August 29, 2016 On 2016-08-24 at 2:38 PM, RUPERTKBD said: Yeah, I was more thinking along the lines of being able to travel there in less than thousands of years. I'm in pretty good shape for an old guy, but.... Warp drive theory(not sure what it's actually called but some dude figured out in 1987 how to warp space in order to push a spaceship with no acceleration, hence no speeed of light cap) is a thing. Just that we need to advance energy tech before we could provide the energy to even test it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nucklehead Posted August 29, 2016 Share Posted August 29, 2016 On 8/24/2016 at 1:22 PM, PhillipBlunt said: I love this detail. It's a mere four light years away! That's only 36 trillion kilometres....Pah! Orbit time 11 days? You'd still be hung over from your last birthday when your new one starts Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Standing_Tall#37 Posted August 29, 2016 Share Posted August 29, 2016 8 hours ago, RUPERTKBD said: This is basically it. There's little point in attempting to travel there with current technology. A generational ship would be obsolete as soon as a better mode of propulsion was achieved by humanity. (Not sure why this post included the one by Standing_Tall) It's all good lil buddy, mine seems to do this in the baseball thread often. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shift-4 Posted August 29, 2016 Share Posted August 29, 2016 18 hours ago, RUPERTKBD said: This is basically it. There's little point in attempting to travel there with current technology. A generational ship would be obsolete as soon as a better mode of propulsion was achieved by humanity. I say there is little point in trying when there is so much work to do on this planet. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.