Live data from Hacker News

Relativistic Spaceship

dmytry.github.io

451–460 of 500 posts

Re: Relativistic Spaceship

#451
post #283

Earlier quoted context omitted.

When talking about how efficient a given reaction mass engine, such as a rocket, can be the unit is specific impulse in seconds. That unit represents how long a given engine carrying a given propellant can maintain 1g acceleration. For context, the most powerful chemical rockets peak around 450s-530s. A nuclear rocket of the sort we can build today would be more than twice that value, and super-efficient ion thruster…

>imagine how many more interesting things they could do with it than fly to nowhere? Like what?

Like power an entire planet for centuries, or use it as the energy budget for a megastructure project like a Dyson swarm.

We're talking about a truly incomprehensible amount of energy, not just to carry the rocket and its own fuel, but the tens of thousands of kg of water and food for even a modest compliment of people.

18 years is a LONG time after all.

Re: Relativistic Spaceship

#452
post #313

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you’re doing 2e8 m/s, your ship is long and thin with a 1m3 nose cone, and space has 100 baseballs per m3 then you’re being hit by 2e10 baseballs a second. How do I get an idea for what 20 billion baseballs (2TJ) feels like? Apparently bullets are about an order of magnitude more energetic than baseballs (800J vs 80J) so I guess I could try to build my intuition based on being shot ~2 billion times a second instea…

It's clearly not a solvable problem with current ideas about technology. No amount of ice, rock, magnetism, or Magic Unobtanium is going to make this practical. I'm not even sure about warp drives. Bending spacetime one way means it has to squish back the other way. The energy released might not affect the ship - possibly - but I'd be surprised if it didn't affect the spacetime it had just passed through. Some kind o…

Worse, it has deleterious effects on the spacetime inside the bubble too. The leading edge of the bubble has exactly the same curvature as a white hole, and the back edge is exactly like a black hole. The result is a beam of Hawking radiation between them. Expect temperatures on the order of 10³⁵K if you manage to stabilize the bubble, but note that this amount of radiation is much more than enough on its own to destabilize it. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alcubierre_drive#Survivability...>

So not only do you need “exotic” matter with negative mass to bend spacetime into a warp bubble, the bubble itself creates so much radiation that spacetime is flattened back out again.

Re: Relativistic Spaceship

#453

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It would be cheaper in every sense to turn something like a giant asteroid into a rotating habitat ship than achieve a constant 1g to even the closest systems. Realistically interstellar travel is not a thing that (biologically modern) humans will ever be suited for, robotic probes don't need thousands of kg of food and water to stay alive, don't need artificial gravity, air, or entertainment. The fact that the trip…

Rotation wont really work unless the structure is gigantic (many miles in diameter) otherwise you will suffer from dizziness. Rotating spaceships like in many movies are probably making everyone on board sick.

This is true, it's why I suggest using a large asteroid for just that reason. Either way though, I promise you that altering a human's vestibular system to accommodate spin is a MUCH easier problem to solve than generating gigatons of antimatter fuel.

Re: Relativistic Spaceship

#454

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sending humans across thousands of light years seems almost impossible , but sending von Neumann probes throughout the galaxy should be possible with some reasonable improvement to our technology.

Yes. That's my assumption: a sufficiently advanced race won't send members of its own species into the inhospitable furthest reaches of space, but rather probes that can report data back to the home-world. That was always my issue with the Kardashev Scale: isn't the technological level of a species better dictated by how little energy they use to accomplish some goal?

Von Neumann probes don’t just send information back, they reproduce themselves. Anything that can manufacture a copy of itself from materials scavenged in unexplored territory can probably build anything else you want as well. A Kardashev II civilization would build a Dyson swarm around it’s own star (or one near by if they are cautious) and use a fraction of its power to send self–replicating Von Neumann probes to a few hundred or thousand nearby stars and galaxies. Those probes would build not just copies of themselves but new Dyson swarms to launch them with. Once the Dyson swarm is built there is plenty of energy available to do all kinds of things, like moving planets around, terraforming them, and seeding them with life.

Re: Relativistic Spaceship

#455

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>> baseball How large is one of those, even? I much prefer to work with perfectly spherical Olympic swimming pools.

Would that be the original British Imperial SOP or the closely-related but not-quite-the-same American SOP?

Actually, the American SOP is the original because the British changed the definition of the gallon in 1824, which you will notice is long after the Revolutionary War. No one in America cared, so we kept on using our customary units.

Re: Relativistic Spaceship

#456
post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It isn't possible without a magic reactionless drive; it might even require a zero-energy drive since the kinetic energy is huge and needs to come from somewhere. The rocket equation kills you. A reasonable fusion rocket would require an enormous (like an entire planet worth) to continuously accelerate to relativistic speeds. Antimatter drives are the only option and still require large amounts of reaction mass since…

You need to get around the rocket equation. > we estimate the neutral hydrogen density in the unperturbed local interstellar medium of 0.195 ± 0.033 cm−3 https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.3847/1538-4357/abb80a You need a hydrogen 'scoop' and fusion. If you can accelerate to 0.01c, you can collect enough hydrogen for 1000 MW fusion power from 32 km2 (6 km diameter) scoop area. Faster you fly, more you get. You can…

Nice. Doesn't even require approaching large stars like in Elite Dangerous!

Re: Relativistic Spaceship

#457
post #447

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> This has been studied at least on paper by militaries. I thought these weapons were real and deployed. Specifically, I understand that hypersonic missiles don't really need an explosive warhead; a hypersonic tungsten rod would make a bigger explosion than any conventional warhead.

Hypersonic missiles are different. I think the idea with those is whether they have a warhead or not they come in so fast you can't possibly shoot them down. The US, Russia, and China are all either confirmed or rumored to have hypersonic delivery systems like this. The "rods from God" concept is the idea of creating an artificial meteorite as a weapon that comes in from space. These may or may not already exist, but…

Regarding the speed: I read somewhere that hypersonics create a "wall" of plasma in front of them. The plasma neither transmits nor reflects radio, so the missile becomes invisible to radar, at least from the front. I have no idea whether that's true.

Re: Relativistic Spaceship

#458
post #300

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So? Even ten extra Jupiters or thousand extra suns would take up only a tiny amount of space compared to the size of the solar system out to Pluto: The distance from the sun to Pluto is about 5.9 billion km. The radius of the sun is about 696,340 km. The ratio of radii is about 8,473. Cube that to get the ratio of volumes, and you get 608,263,848,559 for the ratio of volume in a sphere out to Pluto vs volume of the s…

> The radius of the sun is about 696,340 km Arguably, the entire heliosphere is part of the Sun's atmosphere, and it reaches well beyond Pluto. If I were in a relativistic spaceship, I think I'd want to apply the brakes well before slamming into the heliosphere. What do you call the heliosphere of a star that isn't the Sun? The stellosphere?

Replying to self (sorry).

"Stellosphere" is wrong, because "stella" is Latin, and "sphere" is from Greek. It should be "asterosphere", but that's a word I've never seen nor heard.

Re: Relativistic Spaceship

#459
post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What if you define the "important" reference frame as the speed of light's (in the same direction you are going). Since c is universally constant, it seems like a reasonable privileged reference.

Not a physicist, but my impression is that you're always going 0 percent of the speed of light (in all directions) from your own frame of reference. All you notice is that our solar system is moving away, faster. I guess you'd notice a change in light frequency based on the light in front/behind. Redder behind, bluer in front. Edit: supposedly we can measure our speed compared to the cosmic microwave background which…

> I guess you'd notice a change in light frequency based on the light in front/behind. Redder behind, bluer in front.

The light in question is not uniform like white noise; the spectral power distribution has relatively light and dark lines in them as a result of the physics of the bright sources and intervening gas and dust. Those features also get redshifted.

If one is moving relative to the sun, one would pay attention to the sun's Fraunhofer lines https://physics.weber.edu/palen/clearinghouse/labs/Solarspec...>, which would be Doppler shifted to different wavelengths. These lines also appear in reflected light from bodies in the solar system; if you were flying towards Pluto you would see a corresponding blueshift of the reflected Fraunhofer lines (plus some additional structure related to the chemistry of Pluto; it has some luminescence, as does our moon, as do the leaves of plants, and luminescence tends to impinge on the narrower Fraunhofer lines).

Indeed, measuring the Doppler shifts of multiple known-chemistry light sources is a useful technique in navigation of spacecraft within our solar system; it can in principle do better than precision measurement of angles to multiple light sources.

The spectral distortions of the CMB are certainly interesting, but it's hard to imagine their utility for spacecraft navigation within the Milky Way, rather than helping to physical cosmologists understand why there even is a Milky Way.

In the solar system we have kind-of the opposite problem: in order to get reliable anisotropy data of the Milky Way, probes like WMAP need excellent almanac data for the ephemeris of Jupiter (it's a bright reflector of sunlight and its cloud-tops at ~70 kPa are ~22 GHz microwave-bright; I gather other outer planets are used too, but the details are beyond me) to check its 22-GHz-band detection of the CMB Doppler shift in the directions it looks.

Re: Relativistic Spaceship

#460
post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Holy cow! I just read the energy requirements of that third mission. Total electricity generation capacity of the entire world is about 12TW today [1], whereas that 3rd mission would require a "formidable" - as the author admits - 45,000TW at least. A mere three orders of magnitude more :) [1] https://www.statista.com/statistics/267358/world-installed-p...

I have a confused question here. I asked chatGPT what the approx terawatt output of the sun is. It claims it is 384.6 terawatts. I find that hard to reconcile with the earth having 12TW production. Given that your number is probably OK, that would suggest the sun output calc is way off. I wonder if any non-AI contributors have better ballpark estimates for the sun's energy output.. Hmm, I found a non-chatGPT source,…

I'm really not trying to sound condescending here, but your maths is WAY off. Where did you get 384.6 TW from? Your actual source says

   The power output or luminosity of the Sun is 3.8 x 10^26 W
For reference that's 3.8 x 10^14 TW - so your little AI friend is a cool 12 orders of magnitude off here.

Bottom line: do NOT rely on figures provided by generative models. The chance of them being completely wrong seems to be alarmingly high.

Post reply on HN