You know those 3 new potentially Earth-like planets 39 light years away?

Time it would take to get the

Current rocket technology: 365,000-400,000 years.
1957's Project Orion ship: 195-240 years.

Think about it.

On Monday, May 2, 2016 at 11:04:59 PM UTC-6, RichA wrote:

Time it would take to get the

Current rocket technology: 365,000-400,000 years.
1957's Project Orion ship: 195-240 years.

Think about it.

However, if you could accelerate at a constant one g (as experienced by
the ship) then flip over and decelerate, you could get there in 22 years.

I'd be worried about lethal radiation from running into particles, though,
let alone stuff in the Oort clouds of our solar system and that of the
destination star :-(

There must be a better way ...

Gary

Gary Harnagel:
However, if you could accelerate at a constant one g (as experienced by
the ship) then flip over and decelerate, you could get there in 22 years.

I'd be worried about lethal radiation from running into particles, though,
let alone stuff in the Oort clouds of our solar system and that of the
destination star :-(

There must be a better way ...

Sorry to tell you this, but the reality is that there is no better way.
No way at all, now or in the conceivable future outside of SF. 39 LY
might as well be 39 million LY; we aren't going there.

--
I agree with almost everything that you have said and almost everything that
you will say in your entire life.

usenet *at* davidillig dawt cawm

On Tue, 03 May 2016 11:43:08 -0400, Davoud wrote:

Gary Harnagel:
However, if you could accelerate at a constant one g (as experienced by
the ship) then flip over and decelerate, you could get there in 22 years.

I'd be worried about lethal radiation from running into particles, though,
let alone stuff in the Oort clouds of our solar system and that of the
destination star :-(

There must be a better way ...

Sorry to tell you this, but the reality is that there is no better way.

Well, that's not quite true. There is a better way- send a robot.
Still not likely to happen, but within the realm of our current
technology, and not prohibitively expensive.

On Tuesday, May 3, 2016 at 10:18:03 AM UTC-6, Chris L Peterson wrote:

On Tue, 03 May 2016 11:43:08 -0400, Davoud wrote:

Gary Harnagel:
However, if you could accelerate at a constant one g (as experienced by
the ship) then flip over and decelerate, you could get there in 22 years.

I'd be worried about lethal radiation from running into particles, though,
let alone stuff in the Oort clouds of our solar system and that of the
destination star :-(

There must be a better way ...

Sorry to tell you this, but the reality is that there is no better way.

"When a distinguished but elderly scientist states that something is possible,
he is almost certainly right. When he states that something is impossible, he
is very probably wrong." -- Arthur C. Clarke

Well, that's not quite true. There is a better way- send a robot.
Still not likely to happen, but within the realm of our current
technology, and not prohibitively expensive.

Yes, but our neighbors might not appreciate their 'hood being cluttered up
with our contraptions :-)

And we probably won't do it anyway because politicians don't think beyond
their careers.

On Wednesday, May 4, 2016 at 8:29:21 AM UTC-4, Gary Harnagel wrote:
On Tuesday, May 3, 2016 at 10:18:03 AM UTC-6, Chris L Peterson wrote:

On Tue, 03 May 2016 11:43:08 -0400, Davoud wrote:

Gary Harnagel:
However, if you could accelerate at a constant one g (as experienced by
the ship) then flip over and decelerate, you could get there in 22 years.

I'd be worried about lethal radiation from running into particles, though,
let alone stuff in the Oort clouds of our solar system and that of the
destination star :-(

There must be a better way ...

Sorry to tell you this, but the reality is that there is no better way.

"When a distinguished but elderly scientist states that something is possible,
he is almost certainly right. When he states that something is impossible, he
is very probably wrong." -- Arthur C. Clarke

davoid is no scientist, he certainly isn't distinguished, but he probably is elderly.

He owns fancy equipment but doesn't seem to know how to operate it.

On Wednesday, May 4, 2016 at 6:29:21 AM UTC-6, Gary Harnagel wrote:
On Tuesday, May 3, 2016 at 10:18:03 AM UTC-6, Chris L Peterson wrote:
On Tue, 03 May 2016 11:43:08 -0400, Davoud wrote:
Gary Harnagel:

However, if you could accelerate at a constant one g (as experienced by
the ship) then flip over and decelerate, you could get there in 22 years.

I'd be worried about lethal radiation from running into particles, though,
let alone stuff in the Oort clouds of our solar system and that of the
destination star :-(

There must be a better way ...

Sorry to tell you this, but the reality is that there is no better way.

"When a distinguished but elderly scientist states that something is possible,
he is almost certainly right. When he states that something is impossible, he
is very probably wrong." -- Arthur C. Clarke

That may be, but we don't know of a better way at present, and we don't know
when, or if, we will find one.

Getting to a star 39 light-years away in 240 years, with nuclear propulsion, is
_still_ rather optimistic. Not 400 years (0.1 c) but 4,000 years (0.01 c) is
more likely to be the ultimate limit for conventional propulsion in normal
space.

Actually, though, there _is_ one better way we can foresee. While the
relentless pace of advances in computer technology has slowed of late, it's
still far likelier that we will be able to upload ourselves than that we will
find a way to travel faster than light. Then, even 4,000 years would be a small
part of a human lifetime.

John Savard

On Tuesday, May 3, 2016 at 11:43:10 AM UTC-4, Davoud wrote:
Gary Harnagel:
However, if you could accelerate at a constant one g (as experienced by
the ship) then flip over and decelerate, you could get there in 22 years.

I'd be worried about lethal radiation from running into particles, though,
let alone stuff in the Oort clouds of our solar system and that of the
destination star :-(

There must be a better way ...

Sorry to tell you this, but the reality is that there is no better way.
No way at all, now or in the conceivable future outside of SF. 39 LY
might as well be 39 million LY; we aren't going there.

That remains to be seen (by future generations, not you.) The prospect of generation starships is not all that farfetched, if the time frame can be a few hundred years. The technical problem to solve is food for the passengers, ie an ecosystem.

On Tue, 3 May 2016 05:45:11 -0700 (PDT), Gary Harnagel
wrote:

On Monday, May 2, 2016 at 11:04:59 PM UTC-6, RichA wrote:

Time it would take to get the

Current rocket technology: 365,000-400,000 years.
1957's Project Orion ship: 195-240 years.

Think about it.

However, if you could accelerate at a constant one g (as experienced by
the ship) then flip over and decelerate, you could get there in 22 years.

39 LY in 22 years is an average speed of 1.77c. Or did you measure
time in the travelers' frame of reference?

--
Remove del for email

On Tuesday, May 3, 2016 at 10:04:18 AM UTC-6, Barry Schwarz wrote:

On Tue, 3 May 2016 05:45:11 -0700 (PDT), Gary Harnagel
wrote:

On Monday, May 2, 2016 at 11:04:59 PM UTC-6, RichA wrote:

Time it would take to get the

Current rocket technology: 365,000-400,000 years.
1957's Project Orion ship: 195-240 years.

Think about it.

However, if you could accelerate at a constant one g (as experienced by
the ship) then flip over and decelerate, you could get there in 22 years.

39 LY in 22 years is an average speed of 1.77c. Or did you measure
time in the travelers' frame of reference?

Yep, that's what "as experienced by the ship" means.