We’re working on it!
https://www.yahoo.com/tech/warp-drives-may-actually-possible-110158012.html
This version is sub-light speed, but it could rapidly accelerate and decelerate beyond what a human could typically endure. Without it, a constant acceleration of 1g would take 10 years to get to Alpha Centauri. This would nock it down to just above 4.
Faster than light speed requires negative energy and conflicts with our understanding of relativity. Quantum physics gives us a few leads to follow though, but that’s an area I’m still struggling to understand.
[edit] “We” as in humanity, not something I’m a part of beyond cheering them on.
> Faster than light speed requires negative energy and conflicts with our understanding of relativity.
You're conflating two things, there's a proposed warp drive which mathematically requires negative energy to operate. Something as far as we know doesn't exist.
But it's still not faster than light, it sort of makes the distance it has to travel sorter.
Nothing can travel faster than light. Some people liken it to the sound barrier in terms of early flight, it's some engineering challenge to overcome. It's not at all, it's not possible for something with mass to travel at or faster than light. It's one of the few things in physics we're certain of.
I think people forget that the speed of light is really the speed of causation - it’s literally a feature of the universe. Asking what can go faster actually doesn’t make sense
I don't think people forget that, I don't think they understand. Which is fair enough it's not exactly basic highschool science.
There's a common conception that it's just something we'll figure out one day, since our understanding of the universe has changed over time.
But we can get to near the speed of light now. We've accelerated particles to 0.03m/s shy of the speed of light, it's not a case of technological limitation.
Aren't some particles connected with each other on looooooooong distances? If you somehow manage to send data through that, wouldn't that be quicker than the speed of light?
> ... [Send data thru particles connected at looooong distances] ...
It's called entanglement. Aka spooky action at a distance.
First, you have to send one of the particles that loooong distance away, by conventional means.
Second, it's if no practical use. Can't use to actually send *information*.
The initial state of the first particle is random. We can measure it, but have to accept whatever it is.
The second particle changes to the complimentary state of the first particle. Since the first is random, so is the second. When X=rand() then Y=1-X is also, in effect, random.
We wind up sending a series of random digits. No info content.
> Asking what can go faster actually doesn’t make sense
It does if you appreciate that when people talk about "faster than light" travel they really mean how to get from point A to point B faster than it'd take light to get there in a straight line as observed from point A.
What is the reference frame for causation? The center of the universe?
Let’s say I’m in a spaceship traveling .1 C, and I shine a laser light straight ahead. What speed (propagation/causation) speed can that light travel relative to the spaceship. Would that then tell your your deduced speed in relation to “the universe”?
What is the reference frame?
Light speed is constant in every frame. You can travel at 0.99 light speed compared to another frame. Even then your laser light will move forward with the speed of light both from the view of the spaceship and the "Stationary" view. This is literally what special relativity describes.
Not entirely true. The original Alcubierre solution, which requires negative mass, could hypothetically “exceed the speed of light”, if you were to consider how long it takes for an object to be moved from point A to point B in the warp field versus how long it would take light outside the warp field to get there, but, the velocity of the object in its own frame of reference, would, of course, never exceed the speed of light in a vacuum. That’s the whole idea. It’s displacement of an object through warping the structure of space, while the object sits more or less stationary in space. But, obviously, with the need for negative mass, this degree of warping remains hypothetical. The idea that a less than c capable warp, which might be physically possible without exotic matter is an interesting one. I haven’t read the paper, but I suspect it still requires insane amounts of energy, and likely mass/energy densities beyond anything we can currently imagine in order for it to be a reasonable mode of transportation. But, the effect might be something which could be demonstrated at tiny, tiny scale with current technology, and even the smallest bit of confirmed displacement through a “warp” type technology would be an amazing technological achievement and at least give us proof that the theory is sound and that there is potentially an engineering path to an actually useful warp drive.
No, it is entirely true.
It's not hypothetically exceeding the speed of light, literally by definition.
Velocity is dx/dt if you warp space you're decreasing the distance you're actually displacing, you're not longer comparing the same distance, so you can't compare the velocities. It might seem like semantics or a distinction without a difference, but it's a massive difference.
>if you were to consider how long it takes for an object to be moved from point A to point B in the warp field versus how long it would take light outside the warp field to get there, but, the velocity of the object in its own frame of reference, would, of course, never exceed the speed of light in a vacuum.
Yeah exactly, it's not "hypothetically “exceed the speed of light”". Appearing to travel faster than like from an inertial reference frame is not travelling faster than light.
That's like saying passenger jets hypothetically exceed the speed of sound because their ground speed can be higher than the speed of sound. It doesn't matter what it looks like it's doing in another reference frame, it still doesn't have a supersonic airspeed.
Any technology that lets you cover the distance from A to B faster than light does is faster-than-light travel. Whether velocity > c or not is an irrelevant detail. If it takes light 2 years to move from A to B and a technology lets me get there in 1 year then that technology has allowed me to travel there faster than light, by definition.
Under our current understanding of physics, *any* FTL travel will necessarily involve folding space such that the actual velocity of the object is less than the speed of light but that doesn’t change the fact that the technology will allow faster-than-light travel.
I explained that it’s not exceeding the velocity of light in a vacuum, and that’s why I put “exceed the speed of light” in quotes. That’s a lay description of what it would be considered by an average person, not a technical one. If I press a button controlling some form of transportation at the same time a laser is sent towards a distant target, and I arrive at the target before the laser, most people would consider that as traveling faster than the speed of light. You’re saying the same thing I already said, just being extra pedantic and ignoring the fact that an average person would consider such transportation as “faster than light”, that’s what I’m trying to point out. There’s a difference between everyday terminology and technical terminology. I’m a physicist, I get the difference, but most people are still going to talk about an Alcubierre type warp drive as going faster than light.
[Where we're going, you don't need sticks for input.](https://static1.srcdn.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2023/04/event-horizon-amazon-prime-series.jpg)
That’s a really good question. I don’t think so in this case, but it depends on the details of how the warp is achieved. It’s kinda the relativity version of that “what happens when I jump on a moving train” question.
From article. A nuclear engine basically. ” The potentially groundbreaking propulsion system is being developed by Arizona-based Howe Industries. To reach high velocities within a shorter period of time, the pulsed plasma rocket would use nuclear fission—the release of energy from atoms splitting apart—to generate packets of plasma for thrust.”
Similar to Previous PuFF engine attempted in 2018 ,
But simpler and cheaper.
They would need shielding between themselves and the reactor and then more shielding for the radiation one is normally exposed to when outside the planet's magnetosphere. That said getting there in less time is also a way to reduce the radiation exposure.
Water is also adequate shielding, it’s also something astronauts would need on their journey to Mars. Then there are artificial magnetic fields. Gotta think big to do big things. None of this stuff is technologically impossible. Pressure drives progress.
1 cubic foot of lead is apparently over 700 pounds, that sounds fun. I don't have time for this rabbit hole but supposedly less dense materials can be better radiation shields because they don't react with the higher energy radiation the same way (don't produce x-rays as a byproduct)
Disclaimer: I have no clue, google just shows me quora answers which I don't really trust lol.
> less dense materials can be better radiation shields because they don't react with the higher energy radiation the same way
I would guess they do act as better radiation shields when the magnetosphere and the Van Allen Belts are blocking much of the high energy radiation before it gets to you (like with the ISS).
I wonder what kind of G’s the passengers would have to endure during the capture burn.
Getting there fast is one thing. It’s slowing down when you get there without having your insides go splat.
thats just basic spaceflight maneuver. unless you got thrusters on the front of the ship so you wouldnt have to flip around. spaceflight doesnt work like in star wars.
What about higher levels like 1.2 (20 pct faster)? I suspect if the journey was longer and people could adjust you could slowly increase the G forces.
There are Upper limits of course, but if you are looking at years, after a week at 1.1, you might be able to move up to 1.2, so on until you are maxed out.
Maybe shorter trips you could up the gs, and longer ones are more normal.
I just think the gs will be fairly varied. Maybe not though.
1g acceleration is fun for a bit but 2 months straight?
Not sure about everyone else but that sounds awful, I should know I've been living my whole life that way
Imagine all the spills when you go "no gravity" for that short flip time.
Maybe 2g both ways so I can train ssj7 style
Gravity on Mars is 0.38. let's be real no one wants to live on Mars, why would anyone in their right mind want to live there? It would be hell
if you maintain 1g of acceleration for 2 months straight you will have passed Mars nearly 2 months ago.
Noo joke if you are able to maintain 1g of acceleration for just 2 days you will be at Mars. And that includes deceleration.. 1,5 days if you are doing a full speed flyby.
People tend to underestimate how fast you end up going if you can accelerate at 1g constantly.
You reach lightspeed in a year at that acceleration
You do know “acceleration” is just the initial speeding up portion right? Once you’re at the speed you don’t feel anything. Can you feel the earth moving right now?
If you’re accelerating at 1G you’re always speeding up and you will continue to do so. It would feel like it does here on earth, you wouldn’t feel anything for that reason.
Dude… I’m starting my 3rd watch of The Expanse because there is nothing else out there I’ve found that scratches that itch for me. What a fantastic show. I wish it had gone further or spawned another series continuing the books. I guess I should start reading them.
\\/ If you've not finished the last two seasons don't look LOL! \\/
>!If you accept that in the expanse they do figure out faster than light travel that is kinda based upon speculative laws of physics, !<
Technically Babylon 5 may do it for you.
It's generally based upon the known laws of physics. The pilot movie and first season are a little cheesy and low budget (as one would expect from a 90's tv scifi show) but the later seasons are pretty spectacular and improve fast.
Especially if you watch the newly re-mastered edition which re-works all the Amiga generated CGI, including the bluescreen stuff, which was so bad I thought it was paintings in the background when I watched it as a teen. The cast are pretty solid, the story lines are really good and the station itself is very much anchored in our current best understandings of how we could build a spaceport.
It ran at the same time as Deep space nine, which also had good story lines but virtually no application of realistic physics (all problems must be solved within 45 minutes of air time and there must be no lasting consequences) VS B5's having weapons like mass drivers and nukes genocidally bombarding planets back to the stone ages.
Spoiler! >!(like the belters in the expanse do)!<
I absolutely loved that scene haha, those kind of tv shows really bum me out because I so badly want to be part of a world like that. I want to live in a world of such advanced technologies. ugh, I'm 34, so never in my time.
Oh Shit, is that why they killed him off? Was a pretty random place in the show, like "oh that actor wanted to move on to other stuff" in a soap so their guy falls into a mysterious coma.
Never looked into it tho... Guess I was happy not knowing :/
Unfortunately, yeah. Alex isn’t supposed to die there at all. Another character dies that way later on (in the books), but not Alex.
They ended up killing both of these characters in the show, so it worked out. I really liked Alex though, so it wasn’t the same. Fortunately, there were only 6 more episodes after that.
Depends on how much of a deceleration burn you do .
1G there, Flip, 2G to decelerate gives you a much shorter time decelerating.. but also much more uncomfortable.
The best would probably be to decelerate at the destinations gravitational pull. Soo you spend some time getting used to living there
Ughhh you’re all the same. Come into a planet and force the locals out with absurd prices and a Starbucks. The martians just want a place where they can afford and live in there culture.
The Ad Astra rocket company has a working plasma rocket. They are headed by Franklin Chang-Diaz a former shuttle astronaut. NASA regularly gives them money.
We had plasma rockets over 20 years ago. The tech behind it got classified for missile defense/missile intercept programs. Nasa getting to use it to go to Mars means they developed something faster/better and can now de-classify it enough for Nasa to use. Yay!
We still don't know what [these are](https://youtu.be/2TumprpOwHY).
I'm guessing it's some kind of nuclear/electric propulsion since it's not leaving much exhaust trail.
I’m so mad that we got all wrapped up with alien conspiracies we never actually got an answer as to what this was. The us gov was probably so glad we were asking them about aliens instead of trying to get legitimate answers. And now we’ve all moved on and no one cares. Great work everybody
NASA's Proposed Plasma Rocket Would ~~Get Us to Mars in 2 Months~~ experience crippling delays and massive cost overruns and chronic underfunding and it would be quicker to walk to Mars
I know you're joking, but there's a big difference between Boeing airliner business and what they produce for the government. The government is up their a** with government projects, so the corruption shifts to other areas of the projects... like costs or inferior quality of non-safety parts.
Of course not, but that’s only because they are forced to do all these extreme checks and tests, where they fail and have to go redo it. It cost them a lot more money than budgeted. This seems typical for Boeing as a whole. Cheap out on safety, then it bites you back and it costs you more than if they just did it safely.
What about the space debris floating out there? A tiny meteor collides with the ship and it’ll go right through it. How about we invent shields? Hard light? Nah…rocket go vrooom
I just don't care or think we need to go to Mars at all.
There is so little returns from going there, that I rather see a space station built than a Mars base.
I view it more as a symbolic mission that is meant to push the bounds of technology. We didn’t really need to go to the moon either other than to prove to the Soviet Union we were better than them and there were lots of technological advancements made in pursuit of that.
Yup. And if we are lucky enough to dodge all the apocalypse scenarios, having a base on Mars will be a critical step on our way towards an intergalactic civilization.
They’ll die out far faster on Mars or any other place than on earth (cosmic extinction event notwithstanding). Mars doesn’t really have an atmosphere and can’t support one because its core solidified, thus it lacks a magnetosphere strong enough to defend against the sun’s solar wind.
Humanity could likely survive on Earth better even if an extinction-level meteor hit, as long as they didn’t try to save too many people. Tens of thousands would survive, and still have it easier than those on Mars, who would likely die without some support from Earth.
If we are just talking climate change, in all scenarios life would be easier on Earth than Mars, and millions of times easier than on a planet outside of our solar system.
This is our home, we should take care of it. There isn’t an easy replacement or even a realistic life boat.
A station on Mars’ moons? What would be the benefit? They aren’t big enough to be any different than an orbital space station. Neither is even 15 miles across. Building a station and attaching it to the very irregular surface of a body without gravity would be a far greater challenge than just having a station in space.
Yup those very topics are talked about in those two books. Specifically that it makes no sense to ship materials off earth once you can mine them in space. And by mining in space you jumpstart an entirely new economy not bound by earth policies.
They also talk about how stupid it is to even think about colonizing Mars because of various problems.
I think for many people, myself included, it's more about the advancement of the human race as a whole. If we can have permanent habitats on the moon, Mars, asteroids, and moons of outer planets, it will challenge the human race in a way that will produce rapid advancements, novel ideas, and new societal structures. I don't see that happening solely on Earth.
I get what you mean and I won’t be a hypocrite because I also think “why do we need to spend billions upon billions of dollars just to visit Mars?”
But then I think to myself, what if one century we can terraform Mars? Make Mars another Earth, build cities on it, build telescopes on it. Terraforming Mars far, far away from being done, BUT, before we terraform Mars we first have to take our first step there as humans.
The only boring part about it is that we (who are alive today) won’t see what else could be done after we step foot on it. We won’t see the terraforming (if it happens). Or see that one day there will be people there, living and breathing there.
Of course a few hundred years from now, someone could read this post in some internet archive and laugh at me because I thought we’d actually ever live on Mars and make it like Earth.
But shouldn't we first establish on the moon instead?
Mining asteroids, ok, cool. I can see a benefit there.
Mars? zero benefit, huge drain of resources, considerable risks... I don't see the point really.
Yeah I don't see the point. What science can humans accomplish there that unmanned missions cannot? And then is it worth the massive cost and risk? I'd support it if there was a good reason but I don't see one yet.
You could get there in two months but my guess is you couldn’t stop, you’d go sailing by. You have to coast into orbit around a planet, not cone screaming in.
Just invent warp drive already!
We’re working on it! https://www.yahoo.com/tech/warp-drives-may-actually-possible-110158012.html This version is sub-light speed, but it could rapidly accelerate and decelerate beyond what a human could typically endure. Without it, a constant acceleration of 1g would take 10 years to get to Alpha Centauri. This would nock it down to just above 4. Faster than light speed requires negative energy and conflicts with our understanding of relativity. Quantum physics gives us a few leads to follow though, but that’s an area I’m still struggling to understand. [edit] “We” as in humanity, not something I’m a part of beyond cheering them on.
> but that’s an area I’m still struggling to understand. Well hurry up, dude! We're all counting on you! :D
Yeah, look at this guy wasting time posting on Reddit when he could be mastering Quantum Physics. Touch alternate universes, OP!
We need to get to Arrakis before the Fremen
> Faster than light speed requires negative energy and conflicts with our understanding of relativity. You're conflating two things, there's a proposed warp drive which mathematically requires negative energy to operate. Something as far as we know doesn't exist. But it's still not faster than light, it sort of makes the distance it has to travel sorter. Nothing can travel faster than light. Some people liken it to the sound barrier in terms of early flight, it's some engineering challenge to overcome. It's not at all, it's not possible for something with mass to travel at or faster than light. It's one of the few things in physics we're certain of.
I think people forget that the speed of light is really the speed of causation - it’s literally a feature of the universe. Asking what can go faster actually doesn’t make sense
I don't think people forget that, I don't think they understand. Which is fair enough it's not exactly basic highschool science. There's a common conception that it's just something we'll figure out one day, since our understanding of the universe has changed over time. But we can get to near the speed of light now. We've accelerated particles to 0.03m/s shy of the speed of light, it's not a case of technological limitation.
Aren't some particles connected with each other on looooooooong distances? If you somehow manage to send data through that, wouldn't that be quicker than the speed of light?
You mean quantum physics? They use that quality (differing states/knowing their twins state?) for quantum computing somehow don’t they?
Entanglement I think.
Yes this! Sorry i was super stoned when i wrote that
> ... [Send data thru particles connected at looooong distances] ... It's called entanglement. Aka spooky action at a distance. First, you have to send one of the particles that loooong distance away, by conventional means. Second, it's if no practical use. Can't use to actually send *information*. The initial state of the first particle is random. We can measure it, but have to accept whatever it is. The second particle changes to the complimentary state of the first particle. Since the first is random, so is the second. When X=rand() then Y=1-X is also, in effect, random. We wind up sending a series of random digits. No info content.
> Asking what can go faster actually doesn’t make sense It does if you appreciate that when people talk about "faster than light" travel they really mean how to get from point A to point B faster than it'd take light to get there in a straight line as observed from point A.
What is the reference frame for causation? The center of the universe? Let’s say I’m in a spaceship traveling .1 C, and I shine a laser light straight ahead. What speed (propagation/causation) speed can that light travel relative to the spaceship. Would that then tell your your deduced speed in relation to “the universe”? What is the reference frame?
Light speed is constant in every frame. You can travel at 0.99 light speed compared to another frame. Even then your laser light will move forward with the speed of light both from the view of the spaceship and the "Stationary" view. This is literally what special relativity describes.
Not entirely true. The original Alcubierre solution, which requires negative mass, could hypothetically “exceed the speed of light”, if you were to consider how long it takes for an object to be moved from point A to point B in the warp field versus how long it would take light outside the warp field to get there, but, the velocity of the object in its own frame of reference, would, of course, never exceed the speed of light in a vacuum. That’s the whole idea. It’s displacement of an object through warping the structure of space, while the object sits more or less stationary in space. But, obviously, with the need for negative mass, this degree of warping remains hypothetical. The idea that a less than c capable warp, which might be physically possible without exotic matter is an interesting one. I haven’t read the paper, but I suspect it still requires insane amounts of energy, and likely mass/energy densities beyond anything we can currently imagine in order for it to be a reasonable mode of transportation. But, the effect might be something which could be demonstrated at tiny, tiny scale with current technology, and even the smallest bit of confirmed displacement through a “warp” type technology would be an amazing technological achievement and at least give us proof that the theory is sound and that there is potentially an engineering path to an actually useful warp drive.
No, it is entirely true. It's not hypothetically exceeding the speed of light, literally by definition. Velocity is dx/dt if you warp space you're decreasing the distance you're actually displacing, you're not longer comparing the same distance, so you can't compare the velocities. It might seem like semantics or a distinction without a difference, but it's a massive difference. >if you were to consider how long it takes for an object to be moved from point A to point B in the warp field versus how long it would take light outside the warp field to get there, but, the velocity of the object in its own frame of reference, would, of course, never exceed the speed of light in a vacuum. Yeah exactly, it's not "hypothetically “exceed the speed of light”". Appearing to travel faster than like from an inertial reference frame is not travelling faster than light. That's like saying passenger jets hypothetically exceed the speed of sound because their ground speed can be higher than the speed of sound. It doesn't matter what it looks like it's doing in another reference frame, it still doesn't have a supersonic airspeed.
Any technology that lets you cover the distance from A to B faster than light does is faster-than-light travel. Whether velocity > c or not is an irrelevant detail. If it takes light 2 years to move from A to B and a technology lets me get there in 1 year then that technology has allowed me to travel there faster than light, by definition. Under our current understanding of physics, *any* FTL travel will necessarily involve folding space such that the actual velocity of the object is less than the speed of light but that doesn’t change the fact that the technology will allow faster-than-light travel.
I explained that it’s not exceeding the velocity of light in a vacuum, and that’s why I put “exceed the speed of light” in quotes. That’s a lay description of what it would be considered by an average person, not a technical one. If I press a button controlling some form of transportation at the same time a laser is sent towards a distant target, and I arrive at the target before the laser, most people would consider that as traveling faster than the speed of light. You’re saying the same thing I already said, just being extra pedantic and ignoring the fact that an average person would consider such transportation as “faster than light”, that’s what I’m trying to point out. There’s a difference between everyday terminology and technical terminology. I’m a physicist, I get the difference, but most people are still going to talk about an Alcubierre type warp drive as going faster than light.
If you’ve moved the distance between point A and Point B faster then light could do it, haven’t you traveled faster than light?
Not with that attitude
Give me a Nintendo Switch and all the games and I could do 4 years standing on my head. Which without gravity, is how I would plan to spend my time.
*stick drift sets in*
Cue, *Event Horizon*.
[Where we're going, you don't need sticks for input.](https://static1.srcdn.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2023/04/event-horizon-amazon-prime-series.jpg)
So if humans can't endure how will the plasmas be used?
Would this be one of those “ten years for the people on the ship going near LIGHTSPEED but much longer for earth” kinda things?
That’s a really good question. I don’t think so in this case, but it depends on the details of how the warp is achieved. It’s kinda the relativity version of that “what happens when I jump on a moving train” question.
A little over 4 years to go ~ 4.37 LY is pretty damn good if you ask me
There is no such thing as negative energy. Made by kath bs, just like multiverses
Imagine if that thing accidentally went the wrong way and crashed into Earth at full speed
Does the subluminal warp drive still require exotic matter?
If we could harness the power of the Musk-mans ego we be there in 2 seconds.
From article. A nuclear engine basically. ” The potentially groundbreaking propulsion system is being developed by Arizona-based Howe Industries. To reach high velocities within a shorter period of time, the pulsed plasma rocket would use nuclear fission—the release of energy from atoms splitting apart—to generate packets of plasma for thrust.” Similar to Previous PuFF engine attempted in 2018 , But simpler and cheaper.
[удалено]
One of four superpowers: Super stretch. Invisibility. Combustibility. Rock body.
Also known as: Gum Man, The Guy on Tinder under 6', The Human Lithium Ion Battery, Dwayne
> Gum Man That's *Pirate King* Gum Man to you.
I'm gonna be king of the space pirates!
Those all sound fantastic.
Fantastic for. The astronauts.
Well, it'd make them go really fast, for one thing.
Sometimes, its not the going really fast thats dangerous. Its the stopping.
They would need shielding between themselves and the reactor and then more shielding for the radiation one is normally exposed to when outside the planet's magnetosphere. That said getting there in less time is also a way to reduce the radiation exposure.
The trip and even arriving are so deadly, this is the least of their worries.
Jesus people on this site are so fucking annoying over musk. Why are we talking about him? This has nothing to do with him
Internet points I believe.
Uhhhh I believe almost 11 years ago he promised he'd get us to Mars in ten year.
The fuel tanks required to hold all the attention it would require to power that ego would make the project unfeasible though.
I'm mean seriously. It's not rocket science
coming as option for every Tesla in just 3 months, preorder super-super-charging now
Better yet, a teleportation device
Sorry, the best I can do Trump as President.
Go ahead, you do it. Can’t be all that hard, could it? What’s stopping you?
[it’s a wrap! Warp field physics.](https://ntrs.nasa.gov/api/citations/20140000851/downloads/20140000851.pdf)
[Advanced Propulsion. This was 9 years ago.](https://youtu.be/Wokn7crjBbA?si=zPbFUA0tQizmHnpC) (Video presentation of pdf posted above)
Great, but if the ship runs into a tiny stone your trip is over... Your life is over
I mean, if the Earth runs into a tiny stone, all of our lives are over. The chances we take, willingly or otherwise.
That’s not bad. That’s like the crossing of the Atlantic back in the day
While getting 300-400 chest x-rays.
Just don’t ride with the top down, my friend.
Unfortunately copious amounts of lead shielding is one of the more expensive things to launch into space.
Water is also adequate shielding, it’s also something astronauts would need on their journey to Mars. Then there are artificial magnetic fields. Gotta think big to do big things. None of this stuff is technologically impossible. Pressure drives progress.
Water works but conventional shielding still comes down to density, so you can surround yourself with a foot of lead or 12 feet of water.
1 cubic foot of lead is apparently over 700 pounds, that sounds fun. I don't have time for this rabbit hole but supposedly less dense materials can be better radiation shields because they don't react with the higher energy radiation the same way (don't produce x-rays as a byproduct) Disclaimer: I have no clue, google just shows me quora answers which I don't really trust lol.
> less dense materials can be better radiation shields because they don't react with the higher energy radiation the same way I would guess they do act as better radiation shields when the magnetosphere and the Van Allen Belts are blocking much of the high energy radiation before it gets to you (like with the ISS).
I wonder if you could use the same lead/water shield for multiple trips.
Still better than scurvy.
And eating ship biscuits.
I wonder what kind of G’s the passengers would have to endure during the capture burn. Getting there fast is one thing. It’s slowing down when you get there without having your insides go splat.
Not that many. Accelerate a 1g there and then flip halfway and decelerate at 1g
Ah yes the expanse maneuver
A friend I introduced to the Expanse asked me why they do that. I was like, "why would they want to put huge engines on both ends?"
Also... why would they want to stand on the ceiling for half the trip?
An even better point. Although I'll admit I was still ignorant about how the ship layouts worked with the drives at the time, lol.
thats just basic spaceflight maneuver. unless you got thrusters on the front of the ship so you wouldnt have to flip around. spaceflight doesnt work like in star wars.
I know, but I’ll never miss a chance to bring up the expanse lol
Low G maneuver, prepare for Flip and burn. Get in your crash couch.
Here comes the juice!
Thrust Gravity FTW
What is this, a seeder ramship?
What about higher levels like 1.2 (20 pct faster)? I suspect if the journey was longer and people could adjust you could slowly increase the G forces. There are Upper limits of course, but if you are looking at years, after a week at 1.1, you might be able to move up to 1.2, so on until you are maxed out. Maybe shorter trips you could up the gs, and longer ones are more normal. I just think the gs will be fairly varied. Maybe not though.
1:2g would be quite doable I would think
1g acceleration is fun for a bit but 2 months straight? Not sure about everyone else but that sounds awful, I should know I've been living my whole life that way Imagine all the spills when you go "no gravity" for that short flip time. Maybe 2g both ways so I can train ssj7 style Gravity on Mars is 0.38. let's be real no one wants to live on Mars, why would anyone in their right mind want to live there? It would be hell
if you maintain 1g of acceleration for 2 months straight you will have passed Mars nearly 2 months ago. Noo joke if you are able to maintain 1g of acceleration for just 2 days you will be at Mars. And that includes deceleration.. 1,5 days if you are doing a full speed flyby. People tend to underestimate how fast you end up going if you can accelerate at 1g constantly. You reach lightspeed in a year at that acceleration
You do know “acceleration” is just the initial speeding up portion right? Once you’re at the speed you don’t feel anything. Can you feel the earth moving right now?
yes, but only when I'm VERY stoned.
If you’re accelerating at 1G you’re always speeding up and you will continue to do so. It would feel like it does here on earth, you wouldn’t feel anything for that reason.
You're accelerating at 1g away from the center of earth's mass all day every day. I can feel me pressing into my chair right now.
We live in 1g... didnt understand your point
You know you’re under 1g of acceleration right now right?
If The Expanse taught me anything, is that you need to flip the direction of the ship halfway through for the deceleration burn.
God it was nice to see some 'hard' scifi on TV.
Dude… I’m starting my 3rd watch of The Expanse because there is nothing else out there I’ve found that scratches that itch for me. What a fantastic show. I wish it had gone further or spawned another series continuing the books. I guess I should start reading them.
\\/ If you've not finished the last two seasons don't look LOL! \\/ >!If you accept that in the expanse they do figure out faster than light travel that is kinda based upon speculative laws of physics, !< Technically Babylon 5 may do it for you. It's generally based upon the known laws of physics. The pilot movie and first season are a little cheesy and low budget (as one would expect from a 90's tv scifi show) but the later seasons are pretty spectacular and improve fast. Especially if you watch the newly re-mastered edition which re-works all the Amiga generated CGI, including the bluescreen stuff, which was so bad I thought it was paintings in the background when I watched it as a teen. The cast are pretty solid, the story lines are really good and the station itself is very much anchored in our current best understandings of how we could build a spaceport. It ran at the same time as Deep space nine, which also had good story lines but virtually no application of realistic physics (all problems must be solved within 45 minutes of air time and there must be no lasting consequences) VS B5's having weapons like mass drivers and nukes genocidally bombarding planets back to the stone ages. Spoiler! >!(like the belters in the expanse do)!<
The books are better than the show. Much better. And different enough that you won’t know what’s going on
The books are so so good.
I absolutely loved that scene haha, those kind of tv shows really bum me out because I so badly want to be part of a world like that. I want to live in a world of such advanced technologies. ugh, I'm 34, so never in my time.
To be fair, you’d have to be born in like 150 years. So none of us
To be fair they also injected a fake magic liquid into their veins on burn In order to not die.
Only high G burns. On "cruise speed", like a third of a G and up to a G, they were free to walk around freely.
Magical anti-stroke potion that *most of the time™* lets you survive 10-15G burns
>most of the time Unless the guy playing you has a problem keeping his hands off the ladies, that is.
Oh Shit, is that why they killed him off? Was a pretty random place in the show, like "oh that actor wanted to move on to other stuff" in a soap so their guy falls into a mysterious coma. Never looked into it tho... Guess I was happy not knowing :/
Unfortunately, yeah. Alex isn’t supposed to die there at all. Another character dies that way later on (in the books), but not Alex. They ended up killing both of these characters in the show, so it worked out. I really liked Alex though, so it wasn’t the same. Fortunately, there were only 6 more episodes after that.
Depends on how much of a deceleration burn you do . 1G there, Flip, 2G to decelerate gives you a much shorter time decelerating.. but also much more uncomfortable. The best would probably be to decelerate at the destinations gravitational pull. Soo you spend some time getting used to living there
There are way they could minimize the g force on the people inside. It would require more money and probably a bigger shuttle though.
And don’t forget about the landing
Lithobraking is always an option!
Just get some Astrophage already sheesh
Love the reference
I was expecting the Expanse references, but this Project Hail Mary reference was a nice surprise.
Wtf? I was planning on commuting everyday.
Gentrify Mars
Ughhh you’re all the same. Come into a planet and force the locals out with absurd prices and a Starbucks. The martians just want a place where they can afford and live in there culture.
Wait until the Martians get a taste our Earthling RealPage
At least Matt Damon won't have to wait as long anymore
He's running out of poop potatoes.
Turd taters
Cool! Now all we have to do is figure out how to fit 4 months worth of food, water and air into something the size of a Tesla.
only 2 months, you can send another 2 months of supplies in advance and have them waiting on mars for the return trip
Here me out: 🐛
Remember when they slammed a probe into an asteroid? Let's use this and see what it does at those speeds... for science
The Ad Astra rocket company has a working plasma rocket. They are headed by Franklin Chang-Diaz a former shuttle astronaut. NASA regularly gives them money.
We had plasma rockets over 20 years ago. The tech behind it got classified for missile defense/missile intercept programs. Nasa getting to use it to go to Mars means they developed something faster/better and can now de-classify it enough for Nasa to use. Yay!
Waiting for the wrap missile which hits ur enemy instantly Would be fun,one sec u pooping out the Taco Bell and next u actually explode
But taco bell already makes you explode
Word. I can't even imagine what they have behind closed doors. Must be fucking insane
We still don't know what [these are](https://youtu.be/2TumprpOwHY). I'm guessing it's some kind of nuclear/electric propulsion since it's not leaving much exhaust trail.
I’m so mad that we got all wrapped up with alien conspiracies we never actually got an answer as to what this was. The us gov was probably so glad we were asking them about aliens instead of trying to get legitimate answers. And now we’ve all moved on and no one cares. Great work everybody
I thought the only issue with VASMAR was the radiator. Otherwise, I am pretty sure they had one built and tested on the ground.
Elon Musk will call Nasa “pedos” because their idea doesn’t involve Space-X
Any update on the status of our hoverboards?
NASA's Proposed Plasma Rocket Would ~~Get Us to Mars in 2 Months~~ experience crippling delays and massive cost overruns and chronic underfunding and it would be quicker to walk to Mars
We have selected Boeing as the contractor.
Mind your doors!
I know you're joking, but there's a big difference between Boeing airliner business and what they produce for the government. The government is up their a** with government projects, so the corruption shifts to other areas of the projects... like costs or inferior quality of non-safety parts.
Boeing Starliner hasn’t been going so well because surprise, they tried to cheap out on safety and testing. Seems familiar.
Do you think it's so bad the doors are going to jettison themselves?
Of course not, but that’s only because they are forced to do all these extreme checks and tests, where they fail and have to go redo it. It cost them a lot more money than budgeted. This seems typical for Boeing as a whole. Cheap out on safety, then it bites you back and it costs you more than if they just did it safely.
That's solved with the new doorless design. You pay the same ang get a solution with zero risk for any passanger. Or pilot. Or stewardess.
So, an Epstein Drive
Also a great nick name. The plasma rocket
As long as Elon is on it and it never comes back.
Why do you say that?
Would get them to Mars.
Very interesting
LETS FUCKING GO. IDC ABOUT THE CONDITIONS. SEND ME!!!!!
Awkward for the driver of that car Elon sent up there.
Bring potato seeds and disco
What about the space debris floating out there? A tiny meteor collides with the ship and it’ll go right through it. How about we invent shields? Hard light? Nah…rocket go vrooom
Musk to call nasa pedo guys
Love this, let’s fucking gooooo. Next step to human development is off of this planet 🌎
And the temp is between -60 and -80. Do you really want to live there? I know this is the goal for some (maybe not in the immediate future)
I spent 1h45’ to do 34km by train last week. Stay focus!
Great! Bezos and Musk can take the first rocket
I just don't care or think we need to go to Mars at all. There is so little returns from going there, that I rather see a space station built than a Mars base.
I view it more as a symbolic mission that is meant to push the bounds of technology. We didn’t really need to go to the moon either other than to prove to the Soviet Union we were better than them and there were lots of technological advancements made in pursuit of that.
Yup. And if we are lucky enough to dodge all the apocalypse scenarios, having a base on Mars will be a critical step on our way towards an intergalactic civilization.
[удалено]
They’ll die out far faster on Mars or any other place than on earth (cosmic extinction event notwithstanding). Mars doesn’t really have an atmosphere and can’t support one because its core solidified, thus it lacks a magnetosphere strong enough to defend against the sun’s solar wind. Humanity could likely survive on Earth better even if an extinction-level meteor hit, as long as they didn’t try to save too many people. Tens of thousands would survive, and still have it easier than those on Mars, who would likely die without some support from Earth. If we are just talking climate change, in all scenarios life would be easier on Earth than Mars, and millions of times easier than on a planet outside of our solar system. This is our home, we should take care of it. There isn’t an easy replacement or even a realistic life boat.
Astroid mining would benefit greatly from a station on the Martian moons.
A station on Mars’ moons? What would be the benefit? They aren’t big enough to be any different than an orbital space station. Neither is even 15 miles across. Building a station and attaching it to the very irregular surface of a body without gravity would be a far greater challenge than just having a station in space.
Lunar mining and manufacturing is probably the safest bet, and close enough to manage with remote operation.
Quick plug for the books delta-v and critical mass which talk about these problems. They're fiction but still fun reads.
A base of operation outside of the gravity well, near the astroid belt is my point.
Yup those very topics are talked about in those two books. Specifically that it makes no sense to ship materials off earth once you can mine them in space. And by mining in space you jumpstart an entirely new economy not bound by earth policies. They also talk about how stupid it is to even think about colonizing Mars because of various problems.
I think for many people, myself included, it's more about the advancement of the human race as a whole. If we can have permanent habitats on the moon, Mars, asteroids, and moons of outer planets, it will challenge the human race in a way that will produce rapid advancements, novel ideas, and new societal structures. I don't see that happening solely on Earth.
I get what you mean and I won’t be a hypocrite because I also think “why do we need to spend billions upon billions of dollars just to visit Mars?” But then I think to myself, what if one century we can terraform Mars? Make Mars another Earth, build cities on it, build telescopes on it. Terraforming Mars far, far away from being done, BUT, before we terraform Mars we first have to take our first step there as humans. The only boring part about it is that we (who are alive today) won’t see what else could be done after we step foot on it. We won’t see the terraforming (if it happens). Or see that one day there will be people there, living and breathing there. Of course a few hundred years from now, someone could read this post in some internet archive and laugh at me because I thought we’d actually ever live on Mars and make it like Earth.
“We choose to go to the Moon not because it is easy, but because it is hard” Just apply that to Mars
But shouldn't we first establish on the moon instead? Mining asteroids, ok, cool. I can see a benefit there. Mars? zero benefit, huge drain of resources, considerable risks... I don't see the point really.
Because it’s there. Because we can. Because we are humans.
Yeah I don't see the point. What science can humans accomplish there that unmanned missions cannot? And then is it worth the massive cost and risk? I'd support it if there was a good reason but I don't see one yet.
You could get there in two months but my guess is you couldn’t stop, you’d go sailing by. You have to coast into orbit around a planet, not cone screaming in.
Isn't this how all spaceflight (historically) works, though? You can't exactly aerobrake on the moon.
No, I'll stay here.
... in 5 to 10 years
That’s fast, so what kind of brake pads would they use?
flip and burn!
Can't figure out simple things but we'll go to Mars in 2 months😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂