• RedFrank24@piefed.social
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    2 months ago

    Only 150 light years away?! Wow, that’s practically next door! Now all we need to do is figure out how to go light speed and even then it’ll take a further 300 years just to know if the colonists got there safely or not!

  • ExLisper@lemmy.curiana.net
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    2 months ago

    Found a calculator: https://www.calctool.org/relativity/space-travel

    Assuming we want to accelerate at a constant 1g for half of the travel and then brake at 1g for the second half of the travel we would need 151 years to get there but only 9.794 years would pass on the ship. Depending on the mass of the ship we would need coupe million/billion tons of fuel (anti-matter).

    • Valmond@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      2 months ago

      How can it take 151 years to go 150 light years when not close to lightspeed most of the time? I get the 9 year thing, but 151 years seems wrong.

      • ExLisper@lemmy.curiana.net
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        2 months ago

        Smarter people than me on the internet calculate that at constant 1g you only need 2.5 years to get very close to speed of light. So I guess you accelerate fast enough and reach ‘almost speed of light’ very early in your travel and total time is almost as if you traveled at speed of light the whole time.

        • Tiresia@slrpnk.net
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          2 months ago

          The main advantage of keeping accelerating when you’re at >90% of the speed of light is that it means you arrive faster in subjective time. You could take 160 years to get there and use ten times less fuel (or thereabouts), but the subjective travel time would go up by decades.

          • ExLisper@lemmy.curiana.net
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            2 months ago

            I think having constant gravity on the ship during the entire flight is also a big plus. Designing a ship where you can live in 0g for years and in 1g for years would be like designing two ships in one.

    • Thorry@feddit.org
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      2 months ago

      Oh only a billion tons of anti-matter. Good thing we’ve already made a few nanograms, so in a billion years or so we’ll have plenty.

    • tomiant@piefed.social
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      2 months ago

      302 years later the ship comes back with a pile of gold and a note:

      “Delicious. Please send more.”

    • stephen@lazysoci.al
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      2 months ago

      I like the way you think. I think the sun is closer though. Probably easier to get too. I don’t know I don’t work on space travel.

      • Aquila@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        2 months ago

        Its actually easier to launch stuff out of the solar system than to slow stuff down enough to fall into the sun

        • stephen@lazysoci.al
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          2 months ago

          I keep hearing that. Again - I don’t work on space physics, so forgive my ignorance on why. However- I’m good with billionaires taking as long as needed to get to our sun, some other maybe hospitable planet, or just dying in the cold of interstellar space while we observe a new holiday of them all fuckin’ off from terra firma.