PDA

View Full Version : What would it be like to travel in space



Forealfc
2003-Oct-20, 05:59 PM
If knowing you would not come back to earth and given the oppurtunity to travel in space? Would you do it.. I certainly would.

Any idea how it would be like? Would it just be quiet and black.. See nothing but stars in front of you? Would there be any kind of pressure on the ship itself that would have to be maintained? Maybe going through a black hole might be the answer and to see where it takes you...

What is your input on this? Anyone.....

Would you do it?

Haglund
2003-Oct-20, 06:33 PM
Hmm well where would I go? and would it be my only chance to go? Tough question actually...

It would probably be very quiet (except for sounds from the ship of course), very dark but you would see the stars more clear than ever. The presaure from the outside would be extremely low.

jkmccrann
2005-Oct-22, 08:26 AM
I don't think I could go, as much as going to space appeals to me, i don't see it as some sort of suicide pact with space. I think there's too much living to be done back here on Earth! :)

astromark
2005-Oct-22, 09:57 AM
As yet we dont have the means to go quickly enough to make this idea a fly'er for me. Yes very dark, very quiet, and a long long way befor you get anywhere. Forget the idea of useing a black hole. none are within your life span, and if you get any where near one it will crush you like a peanut is to peanut butter. we need some other techno., device. as yet undescovered. The 'Hart of Gold' or 'Enterprise' or even the 'Tardis' might help. Useing our rockets of today it would take us something in the realm of twelve years to reach the nearest star to our sun. Thats a twenty five year return trip. We are not ready yet.

Kaptain K
2005-Oct-22, 02:30 PM
Assuming that we do develope an effective interstellar drive (I think we will), it simply will not happen until we are an interplanetary civilization. Karl Benz did not start by building an AMG Hammer. The Wright brothers did not start off building F-16s. Oog did not discover the microwave oven. Etc.

howard2
2005-Oct-24, 10:00 PM
Because of the limitations imposed by laws of physics and our short life spans and our fragile bodies. All deep space travel will be a one way trip.
It is a very hostile enviroment out there and we like all organic entities are very specific to the enviroment in which we evolved.

Enzp
2005-Oct-25, 06:00 AM
It would be very very boring. The scenery would not perceptibly change until you compared photos to detect small differences. This assumes you have a reasonable space habitat to sustain you. You would not get to anything within your lifetime, the universe is a pretty big place.

And as much as I like peanut butter, I would not like to become some.

astromark
2005-Oct-25, 06:27 AM
The science involved is easly under stood. I hope its wrong. If we could leave Earth orbit excelarating at just one G. and continued to do so. As you might amagine, not befor to much time went by you might be getting up to light speed. No. Becouse the amount of energy required to propell you at this rate is greater than is contained in the universe you are trying to travel through. Albert said this was so and Stephen agree's with him. Who am I to argue with them. . . . yes, thats right. I am me, and I do. . . . I just cant prove it yet. If only becouse the alternative is Un except able.

Jens
2005-Oct-25, 06:57 AM
and if you get any where near one it will crush you like a peanut is to peanut butter.

Actually, it would crush you much worse!

astromark
2005-Oct-25, 10:11 AM
I dont think you would mind.worse is bad enough.

Jens
2005-Oct-26, 05:34 AM
Yes, I suppose you're right about that. Actually, who knows, being sucked into a black hole might be a bit less painful than going through a nut grinder. But maybe this should be in the thread about "death in space."

Jerryf
2005-Oct-26, 02:26 PM
The science involved is easly under stood. I hope its wrong. If we could leave Earth orbit excelarating at just one G. and continued to do so. As you might amagine, not befor to much time went by you might be getting up to light speed. No. Becouse the amount of energy required to propell you at this rate is greater than is contained in the universe you are trying to travel through. Albert said this was so and Stephen agree's with him. Who am I to argue with them. . . . yes, thats right. I am me, and I do. . . . I just cant prove it yet. If only becouse the alternative is Un except able.

I've pondered on this point as well. And I'm still stuck on this : however you're percieved by observers at the place you left or at your destination you will still have accelerated at 1G for about 247 days and would be travelling very close to light speed. Everything in your own frame remains unchanged relatively - inertia, engines, fuel, fuel effiency etc. etc. . Or an alternate view would be that if overall mass increases in a relativistic way, so does the mass of the fuel you're using - so what would be the reason that you would need ever increasing amounts of energy?

howard2
2005-Oct-27, 12:12 AM
A very good point, I need to ponder.

astromark
2005-Oct-27, 08:47 AM
I have not the faintest idea. I have read that it so. so it is. maybe. maybe not. Now look what youve done. I've confused myself.

astromark
2005-Oct-27, 08:57 AM
So, Whats it like to travel in space? . . Very quiet, just the noisess from within your craft. Very little sensation of movment. Its going to be decades befor you near a star other than Sol. So I would sagest we build the machines and send them, I'm to busy. We need to find a faster way to cross the space between us and where you want to go.

publiusr
2005-Oct-27, 08:12 PM
You would spend a lot of time on experiments. It would be a lot like work.

Planetwatcher
2005-Oct-30, 09:53 PM
Useing our rockets of today it would take us something in the realm of twelve years to reach the nearest star to our sun. Thats a twenty five year return trip. We are not ready yet.
You better add at least 3 zeros behind those figures.

The nearest star to our Sun is 25 trillion miles away. Or about 4 1/4 years traveling at the speed of light. To get there in 12 years would require going at morer then 1/3 the speed of light.
That's if you got enough fuel. And then having enough would greatly slow you down from the amount of mass the fuel would require.

The fastest anything we got on the drawing boards of being realistic could potentually achieve three tenths of one percent of light speed.

The lack of gravity would cause untold health problems, and the trip itself would be terribly boring. If you lived long enough to get anywhere.

Then what are you going to do once you get there? Likely only turn around and come back here to tell what you found. But the people you left behind have long since turned to dust.

alainprice
2005-Oct-30, 10:09 PM
Artificial gravity is a joke. Build your spaceship in a shape similar to a torus, and then make it spin. Centrifuge that s**t down!!!

Wolverine
2005-Oct-31, 04:00 PM
http://www.bautforum.com/images/icons/icon4.gif alainprice, please abide by the forum rules (http://www.bautforum.com/showthread.php?p=564845#post564845):

3. Language

No cursing. This goes along with being polite. This website is read by a lot of kids, including young school kids who want to learn about astronomy, space, and space exploration. The Universe is a marvelous place, full of beauty and wonder, and if you despoil it by using bad language you will quickly invoke the ire of the administrators and moderators. Think of the language used on TV during an after-school special and you'll get the idea. Deliberately misspelled bad words, or replacing key letters with different characters or numbers will not be tolerated.

fossilnut2
2005-Oct-31, 04:18 PM
You better add at least 3 zeros behind those figures.

The nearest star to our Sun is 25 trillion miles away. Or about 4 1/4 years traveling at the speed of light. To get there in 12 years would require going at morer then 1/3 the speed of light.
That's if you got enough fuel. And then having enough would greatly slow you down from the amount of mass the fuel would require.

The fastest anything we got on the drawing boards of being realistic could potentually achieve three tenths of one percent of light speed.

The lack of gravity would cause untold health problems, and the trip itself would be terribly boring. If you lived long enough to get anywhere.

Then what are you going to do once you get there? Likely only turn around and come back here to tell what you found. But the people you left behind have long since turned to dust.

Not only would it take 10s of thousands of years to reach Alpha Centauri with our fastest spaceship...it isn't even a desirable destination.

I get antsy after a couple hous in an airplane. A whole life on a spacecraft to not even get anywhere!!! I'd be a babbling idiot after a couple weeks. Give me the great outdoors, the sound of birds, the sun on my face and fresh air.

Kaptain K
2005-Oct-31, 07:16 PM
...Alpha Centauri...isn't even a desirable destination.
Why not? Alpha Centauri "A" is type G2V the same as the Sun, but slightly more massive (1.09x), bigger (1.2x) and brighter (1.54x). Alpha Centauri "B" is type K1V, slightly less massive (0.90x) smaller (0.80x) and fainter (0.44x). Both stars are older than our Sun (5-6 byo vs 4.6) and have higher metallicities, which means that they are very likely to have rocky planets. Lastly, they are far enough apart (11 AUs at closest approach) to both have stable habitable zones. Alpha Centauri "A" is no brighter as seen from "B" (even at closest approach) than the Sun is from Saturn. From "A", "B" gets no brighter than the Sun does from Uranus.

So, I ask again, why not?

Ken G
2005-Oct-31, 11:04 PM
however you're percieved by observers at the place you left or at your destination you will still have accelerated at 1G for about 247 days and would be travelling very close to light speed. Everything in your own frame remains unchanged relatively - inertia, engines, fuel, fuel effiency etc. etc. .
The problem with space travel is not relativity. You could get to half the speed of light with only slight relativistic modifications, and so you could make the trip in a decade or so. The real problem is, you'd have to maintain your 1G acceleration for months, not minutes. See Planetwatcher's post for the difficulties there relative to current technology.

trinitree88
2005-Oct-31, 11:53 PM
Many moons ago, Kemo Sabe, Professor Enzmann of MIT designed one of the first viable starships. A huge spherical tank of liquid hydrogen, I believe ~ 500 feet in diameter, connected to a tube of living quarters and supplies, some 1000 feet long, with a nuclear reactor for energy, and an ion propulsion drive. The schema, (by recollection,I've not read the article in twenty years...) was that the huge sphere of hydrogen was used for fuel and shielding from the onboard reactor. The distance to the far end of the tube, or needle, give inverse square law reduction in radiation exposure also. It proposed accelerating at 1 g for months....traveling at a substantial fraction of c for years...decelerating at 1 g for months, and using a shuttle craft to explore the Centauri system. The passengers would spend about twenty years in transit. The real problem was money. It would take the gross national product of all the nations of the world for ~ one year to assemble the baby in low Earth orbit. But it was a doable engineering feat. I believe it was featured in Astronomy magazine, or Sky & Tel circa 1975. Ciao. Pete

astromark
2005-Nov-01, 08:39 AM
Looking back through this thread brings me to the conclousion that many of you are negative thinkers. If its not broken it soon will be and it just cant be done. As Trinatee 88 has said. there are ways. There will be changes to the way we propell space craft. The gravity question is a good place to look at the way you think. If a craft accelerats at 1 g what more could you need? Thats one Earth gravaty, and on nearing your target. Turn it around and slow it at 1 g. Use a shuttle type craft for excursions to planets as yet unfound...
Have a little more faith in the advancment of our science. What year was it when astronomy really took of. With the building of the first telescopes. We are on the brink of building Massive telescopes. I have herd 22 metres as the width of a chillian project.I do not have the slightest idea how space craft might be propelled at the speeds I am dreaming of, but that does not mean it cant be done. So lighten up and look for the ideas that might take us forward.

Planetwatcher
2005-Nov-03, 09:35 AM
A huge spherical tank of liquid hydrogen, I believe ~ 500 feet in diameter, connected to a tube of living quarters and supplies, some 1000 feet long, with a nuclear reactor for energy, and an ion propulsion drive.
Sorry, this is not doable. I'm no math expert, but no ion propulsion drive alone, regardless of size will ever achive a 1 G acceleration. It is totally impossible. The most advanced ion drive designs would take more then 5oo years to achieve maximum acceleration.

Now a fussion drive for initial acceleratin, with an ion drive to maintain or provide very slow additional acceleration would be a different matter.
But even using then the size tank described, to have a fussion engine powerful enough to even make say 1/2 of light speed, would consume the entire tank of fuel before the ship even made it as far as Neptune's orbit.

I'm not even sure how far it would take at 1 G acceleration to reach 1/2 of light speed. But I'll bet it would be far beyond Neptune. Safe to say even beyond the helopause.

Now that's not saying we will never get there at all, but we'll never get there with anything currently usable, or even on the drawing boards.

In over 45 years of rockets, and space travel, we still haven't yet reached speeds a whole lot greater then our early rockets.
The most powerful rocket ever launched from the surface of our planet was designed more then 40 years ago. Even today, nothing we have comes close to the old Saturn V.

Some of the most hopeful ideas and theories may possibly get us on our way to Alpha Centauri by the end of this century. And they won't arrive until sometime in the 23rd century.

Now it's not impossible, although not likely either that some means of propulsion may be discovered in this century that could get us to the nearest stars in a human lifetime.

Planetwatcher
2005-Nov-03, 09:36 AM
...Alpha Centauri...isn't even a desirable destination.
To echo Kaptain K, why not? He stated some good arguements.
But on the other hand there may be destinations which are more desirable then Alpha Centauri, but that doesn't make Alpha Centauri undesirable.

One which IMHO may be better is Epsolin Eridani.
Which while is 2 1/2 times farther then Alpha Centauri, and in the opposite direction, is already known to have at least 2 planets. The K 2 type star isn't a lot smaller then Alpha Centauri B, so it does have a realistic life zone.
Once the 1 G acceleration becomes reality, the amount of time to get there isn't so much more signicant then Alpha Centauri to make it not worth while. Once a vi of 1/2 of light speed is reached, it would barely take a dozen more years to make it to Epsolin Eridani which is 10.5 Light Years distant from us then it would for Alpha Centauri.

A couple other good choices are 61 Cygni, which is a K class binary system, or Procyon, a middle of the road F class star. Both are less then one light year farther then Epsolin Eridani.