←back to thread

417 points fuidani | 1 comments | | HN request time: 0s | source
Show context
londons_explore ◴[] No.43714580[source]
This is happening 124 light years away from earth.

That means if we develop a way to make a space ship accelerate at 1g for a long period of time, you could go there in just 10 relativistic years.

Unfortunately, whilst science allows such a rocket, our engineering skills are far from being able to build one.

replies(5): >>43714764 #>>43714789 #>>43714808 #>>43715899 #>>43716041 #
mr_mitm ◴[] No.43714808[source]
Calling it simply an engineering issue is not properly conveying the ridiculousness of such a journey. For a small space ship of 1000 tons, this would take ten thousand times the current yearly energy consumption of mankind. So we'd need to figure out how to generate the energy and then store it on a space ship before even thinking about the engineering.

And that's ignoring the mass of the fuel. The classical rocket equation has the mass going exponentially with the velocity, which makes this endeavor even more mind bogglingly ridiculous. We'd actually need 2 million years worth of our current yearly energy consumption.

It's fun to think about, but being clear about the challenges puts quite the damper on it.

replies(4): >>43714899 #>>43714934 #>>43715117 #>>43715218 #
hidroto ◴[] No.43714934[source]
It does not have to be a chemical rocket. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Breakthrough_Starshot
replies(2): >>43715027 #>>43715053 #
1. mr_mitm ◴[] No.43715027{3}[source]
I wasn't talking about chemicals.

My computation assumed an antimatter engine. Any drive is bound by conservation of energy and momentum.

I guess you wanted to object to an propulsion drive. Sure, you can do some fly by maneuvers or use earth bound laser propulsion, but I'm not convinced that it will put a dent in it for a regular space ship.

Also, the starshot concept won't help you with slowing down. I was assuming you actually wanted to exit the spaceship upon arrival.