And of course, generational ships might make it possible, although the ethical ramifications make it seem as though this probably will not be utilized, at least if our society's value of the rights of individuals remains intact in a highly developed future. Although I suppose there is no guarantee on that.
One other question, and this is more a ridiculous and fantastical scenario, but the answer is to help understand humanity's capabilities. If we somehow though the earth was going to end in the next 20-50 years, and the only way to prevent it was travel to a nearby solar system, could we pull together and develop the appropriate technology in time?Interstellar Travel: Popular science fiction or possibility?
%26lt;QUOTE%26gt;Does "theoretically possible" mean "slim chance?"%26lt;/QUOTE%26gt;
No, it means "this is something we ought to try".
Theoretically, when you calculate the energy output of the human body assuming it to be at normal body temperature emitting blackbody radiation, you APPROXIMATE it to a 1-meter-radius sphere. It works well, it simplifies the math quite a lot, it's how a physics student would solve the problem -- but it doesn't mean that people are spheres.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_body
In fact, the theory is not the engineering -- it doesn't quite go around telling you HOW to do it, but rather why it MIGHT be possible (which is not the same thing as saying that it IS).
%26lt;QUOTE%26gt;could we pull together and develop the appropriate technology in time?%26lt;/QUOTE%26gt;
I say "No".
This isn't something you can solve simply by throwing money at it. We've not even scratched the surface on that subject because it's not deemed relevant or urgent, and the amount of problems which are foreseenable (and especially those that are NOT) and the way the relate with each other, makes it something that is NOT prone to jumping steps in the meantime.
We've only sent some 20-30 people to our "lunar backyard" some 40 years ago (and less than half of those actually "played" in the backyard) on something weaker than the Wright Brothers' "Flyer". This is NOT technology that allows people to spend long periods of time WITHOUT assistance from Earth.
And then comes the problem of training the sufficient number of people, and selecting which ones will go and which ones would stay behind.
50-100 years is a feasible scenario for putting a self-sustainable platform in another planet in THIS solar system; it isn't for making interstellar travel aboard a large, self-sustained spaceship (with all its problems). Even just making it to Mars is a serious problem on itself. We'd need at least twice as much that amount of time to start seriously considering actually sending humans on a long-term (many thousands of years) interstellar travel from which they'd never return to Earth.
Thank you for all responses. I'm still curious as to why the scientifically-supported opinions on opposite sides, to the point of one educated camp saying its likely and worth researching to the other educated one saying there's 0% chance. With science, you'd think there'd be less disagreement.
Report Abuse
Interstellar Travel: Popular science fiction or possibility?With our current technology and budget it is not possible.
The Distances are two grate. You would not be able to support life for that amount of time it would take to get even to the nearest star.Interstellar Travel: Popular science fiction or possibility?
We could likely get someone to Alpha Centauri within 50 years, though the effort would ruin every economy on Earth. FTL is theoretically possible, look up Alcubierre drive on wikipedia.
I think FTL travel is impossible because it creates impossible paradoxes. For example, two ships traveling away from each other at near light speed will distort time. The distortion will apply to each ship from the other's perspective, so that each ship will experience time at a slower pace than the other. How can it be possible, however, for both objects to age slower than the other one? The only resolution to this paradox is that no communication between them can exceed the speed of light, so they can't "see" each other aging slower in real time. Breaking the speed of light would reopen this paradox, and result in an impossible situation.
Right now, we don't have any technology or even a real theory as to how to push a solid mass faster than the speed of light. We don't even really have a way of pushing that same mass (whether a space ship or a feather) to even 1/4 of the speed of light.
And... we won't even be ready to tackle such a problem if we shy away from our space program.
I'm not confident, but I *do* think we'll find a way to explore the stars. It will not be in my lifetime, or my children's, but I do think - as long as we keep pushing science - that we'll take baby steps in the direction we need to go.
As for your question... I'd be happy if we just landed on Mars in the next 50-60 years... I just don't think we'd have it in us to construct a big, interstellar craft. Not yet, anyway.
The first thing to realize is that faster than light travel is NOT theoretically possible, regardless of what sort of drive we might develop. It is a function of the Universe that an object with mass cannot travel at light speed. Given the current level of technology, either a generational ship or a sort of hibernation system is the only way we know could get people to another star, though technology has a long way to go before it is capable of such a trip. We have no idea what psychological problems may be encountered by a crew who know only their great great great etc grandchildren will reach the destination, quite apart from the engineering problems of sustaining a ship for hundreds of years. The problem with hibernation is that humans are not designed for it, and when the temperature falls low enough, ice crystals form in the blood and body fluids, resulting in destruction of the tissue.
No comments:
Post a Comment