Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Relativistic Spaceship

dmytry.github.io

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 500 posts

Re: Relativistic Spaceship

#41

Post by ryandrake »

MilStdJunkie wrote: post #31
AlexAndScripts wrote: post #13

I had no idea you could achieve relevant amounts of time dilation so "easily" with relatively small (1m/s) of constant thrust - such that interstellar travel becomes somewhat viable provided you can continuously accelerate for the entire trip. Googling it, it would take approximately three years of observed time for a traveller to get to alpha centauri at 1g. Could any somewhat-plausible technologies (fusion etc) get…

One gee over the course of months is insane . Even if you converted the entire "fuel" reaction mass directly into momentum, you're still carrying tens or hundreds of thousands of tons of fuel for any remotely habitable spacecraft. And no engine has perfect mass conversion. Matter-Antimatter has been simulated to be maybe sixty percent efficient, fusion is around 17%, nuclear pulse propulsion a surprising 7%, fission…

> As an SF writer, it's pretty interesting, though, to think of the weird shapes a society would take when your astronauts are outliving entire civilizations.

I guess this all depends on how you define simultaneity. Say I got on a relativistic rocket traveling near c and colonized Planet X in 10 years ship time and say 20,000 years Earth time. I put up my TV antenna as soon as I land, and I'd still be receiving Earth transmissions from approximately 10 years after I left, no? So even though civilization is long gone from Earth's point of view, from my point of view, I can keep up with the latest news as if I were still living there. So from my point of view I did not outlive anything.

If I were to go back, yes, everything would be gone.

Re: Relativistic Spaceship

#42

Post by foota »

MilStdJunkie wrote: post #26
AlexAndScripts wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I suppose you would also have to worry about surviving the trip - every atom in the interstellar medium would damage your ship, likely penetrating the entire way through, and electromagnetic repulsion would only work with charged particles.

Every proton would have the energy of a baseball. It's bananas. Granted, space is really empty, but it's not that empty, somewhere around a hundred atoms per cubic meter. Your ship might look like a very, very long shooting star. Probably dialing the speed down a touch would be worth it for whatever your shielding material is, but who knows? We're talking miracle engines here. I think in the "Valkyrie" ship-on-a-stri…

These regenerative braking schemes are getting out of hand.

Re: Relativistic Spaceship

#43

Post by robertlagrant »

MilStdJunkie wrote: post #26
AlexAndScripts wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I suppose you would also have to worry about surviving the trip - every atom in the interstellar medium would damage your ship, likely penetrating the entire way through, and electromagnetic repulsion would only work with charged particles.

Every proton would have the energy of a baseball. It's bananas. Granted, space is really empty, but it's not that empty, somewhere around a hundred atoms per cubic meter. Your ship might look like a very, very long shooting star. Probably dialing the speed down a touch would be worth it for whatever your shielding material is, but who knows? We're talking miracle engines here. I think in the "Valkyrie" ship-on-a-stri…

I like that old Arthur C Clarke novel, The Songs of Distant Earth[0], where they travel with an ablative shield in front made of ice, and they can make new shield segments by finding planets with water.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Songs_of_Distant_Earth

Re: Relativistic Spaceship

#44

Post by MagicMoonlight »

thatwasunusual wrote: post #37
ryandrake wrote: post #12

Great visualization of the unintuitive nature of special relativity. It's kind of mind blowing to realize that if we could accelerate our spaceship at a mere 1G continuously, we could visit the center of the Milky Way in under 20 years (spaceship time), totally do-able in a human lifespan. Of course 27900 years would have passed on Earth, so you wouldn't be able to tell anyone about your vacation.

We would also need to find a way to slow down.

You just turn around at the half way point

Re: Relativistic Spaceship

#45

Post by Workaccount2 »

AlexAndScripts wrote: post #13

I had no idea you could achieve relevant amounts of time dilation so "easily" with relatively small (1m/s) of constant thrust - such that interstellar travel becomes somewhat viable provided you can continuously accelerate for the entire trip. Googling it, it would take approximately three years of observed time for a traveller to get to alpha centauri at 1g. Could any somewhat-plausible technologies (fusion etc) get…

Even if you can figure out the problem of thrust, you still have to deal with particles slowly swiss-cheesing your ship.

And even beyond that, you either witness the ships leaving and never hear back or you embark on one and comeback to whatever Earth is in thousands of years from now.

Re: Relativistic Spaceship

#46

Post by EA-3167 »

ryandrake wrote: post #12

Great visualization of the unintuitive nature of special relativity. It's kind of mind blowing to realize that if we could accelerate our spaceship at a mere 1G continuously, we could visit the center of the Milky Way in under 20 years (spaceship time), totally do-able in a human lifespan. Of course 27900 years would have passed on Earth, so you wouldn't be able to tell anyone about your vacation.

It's worth saying that 1G is heavy acceleration to maintain, nothing "mere" about it. When you run the numbers the amount of energy involved basically adds up to needing a rocket made entirely of antimatter, and a similar mass of 'normal' matter to react with.

Keep in mind that when talking about long-distance journeys in space under any sort of constant acceleration, the numbers are generally in thousandths of 1G.

Re: Relativistic Spaceship

#48

Post by jvanderbot »

ryandrake wrote: post #27
AlexAndScripts wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I suppose you would also have to worry about surviving the trip - every atom in the interstellar medium would damage your ship, likely penetrating the entire way through, and electromagnetic repulsion would only work with charged particles.

Sure, there are plenty of practical problems that would make the trip impossible. The fuel mass alone that would have to be shot out the back to make that trip would be something on the order of 800 million times the mass of the payload (you). So a 100kg person sitting in a 100kg spaceship would require something like 160 billion kg of fuel, assuming zero energy loss in burning the fuel. Relativistic rocket calculato…

Well that depends on the ejection velocity. If you could shoot it out at close to speed of light, you'd need much less.

Re: Relativistic Spaceship

#49

Post by bee_rider »

m3kw9 wrote: post #14
ryandrake wrote: post #12

Great visualization of the unintuitive nature of special relativity. It's kind of mind blowing to realize that if we could accelerate our spaceship at a mere 1G continuously, we could visit the center of the Milky Way in under 20 years (spaceship time), totally do-able in a human lifespan. Of course 27900 years would have passed on Earth, so you wouldn't be able to tell anyone about your vacation.

I wonder what is a safe acceleration to get to light speed for long periods without hurtin too much

You can’t “get to” light speed, that’s one of the big punchlines in relativity.

If you pick an acceleration equal to the acceleration we experience on Earth (aka 1g, aka ~9.8m/s^2), you hit relativistic speeds (speeds at which you need to take into account the effects of relativity to do anything) surprisingly fast. On the order of hundreds of days. So, it is not really a matter of safe acceleration on a long space trip. Instead you have to worry about the actual speed you are traveling at—even though space is very empty, there are still atoms floating around out there, and you’ll be moving at very high speeds relative to them, leading to interesting collisions.

Re: Relativistic Spaceship

#50

Post by AnimalMuppet »

MilStdJunkie wrote: post #31
AlexAndScripts wrote: post #13

I had no idea you could achieve relevant amounts of time dilation so "easily" with relatively small (1m/s) of constant thrust - such that interstellar travel becomes somewhat viable provided you can continuously accelerate for the entire trip. Googling it, it would take approximately three years of observed time for a traveller to get to alpha centauri at 1g. Could any somewhat-plausible technologies (fusion etc) get…

One gee over the course of months is insane . Even if you converted the entire "fuel" reaction mass directly into momentum, you're still carrying tens or hundreds of thousands of tons of fuel for any remotely habitable spacecraft. And no engine has perfect mass conversion. Matter-Antimatter has been simulated to be maybe sixty percent efficient, fusion is around 17%, nuclear pulse propulsion a surprising 7%, fission…

Can you explain why matter-antimatter only has 60% efficiency?
Post reply on HN