What about using a long ship and then using a high tech spring to apply the deceleration over the length of it. Relocate the passenger at the front and repeat until you reached the desired speed. Just thinking out loud maybe that will be counterproductive in the amount of time needed
This reminds me of the device used in Jules Vernes " From the Earth to the Moon". The projectile has "thick lining of leather fastened on springs of best steel", together with some sort of hydraulic system, meant to absorb the shock of shot.
Oh, that’s silly, for a practical context, which flying a spaceship would be. Practically, it would be relative to the nearest large body/galaxy/pair, and depend on context, which would almost always be understood. For example, if you’re observing a planet, full stop would be relative to that planet.
So full stop means either go to geosynchronous orbit or fall to the surface?
Since human occupied spaceships are never meant to fall from space, except for the illegal suicide vessels found near Vermiticus 4, I think the practical answer would be geosynchronous orbit.
Is this 9.8m/s2? So after 1 year at this is 3.156e7*9.8/1000*3600km/h ? Assuming it's just moving in space away from any massive objects in a straight line...1 billion km/h. Isn't it too fast?
Not to mention the power required to continuously accelerate. Or what happens to anything hitting you when you're traveling at that speed. Or needing to turn. Every answer is just a disguise for four more problems.
Even worse, what happens when you get to your destination? Will you find a perfect analog of Earth and with the same kind of star? Assuming the star is very similar to our Sun, then you can ask about the atmosphere of the planet. Pretty much you need 25% oxygen and 75% nitrogen and 14 pound per square inch pressure on the surface. Fine, is the gravity the same? If not, there may be problems getting around. Okay, so what about food? You don't want to die of hunger. Finally, what about viruses and bacteria on the planet? They may attack you instantly and you die a miserable death in two weeks. At that point you may say to your self, Why did I come here.
'According to the Star Trek Encyclopedia (2nd ed., p. 205), inertial dampers were "invented" by Star Trek writers to explain how the crew avoided becoming "chunky salsa" when starships accelerated or decelerated. ' [1]
and further list them as a requirement to achieve warp. I would imagine that "merely" instantly decelerating from 0.25c to a dead stop would be trivial in comparison.
If a ship is capable of continuous 1g acceleration then it shouldn't be designed with rotating centrifugal rings for gravity. Instead, design the ship with the floor towards the engine and travel at a constant 1g to wherever it is that you're going. Decelerate at the same speed.
I'm really surprised by this oversight as other things (magnetic boots) from The Expanse were explicitly mentioned. In The Expanse, this is exactly how ships are set up. The "floor" is towards the engine and the continuous 1g acceleration provides "gravity". When a ship starts decelerating there is a "flip and burn" where everyone straps in while the ship literally turns around and starts accelerating at 1g in the op…
> In The Expanse, this is exactly how ships are set up. The "floor" is towards the engine
This is pretty common in written science fiction but the fact that it is uncommon in movie/tv sci-fi is pretty damning really. Having spacecraft fly around like aircraft or cruise like ships, with decks "horizontal" and engines at the "back end" is just so bloody stupid. If you can't get basic physics right you have no business making science fiction. /rant
He mentions Expanse and yet not the smart "skyscraper" design of it's ships? Where the engines push from the "bottom" (decks-wise), not from the back as in a literal seaship. With that arrangement, the issues of "back wall is suddenly the floor" disappear.
I think it would be impossible for humans to walk around at more than ~1.5 g of acceleration for extended periods of time, and even that is asking a lot. Take the g-force and multiply it by your body weight. That would be how heavy you feel when standing. If you are 70 kg (154 lbs) and under 1.5g of acceleration that is an extra 35 kg (77 lbs) of weight, which is about what we ask a modern soldier to carry. But the s…
Acceleration-added weight is carried better than a backpack. It's better distributed, the same way the rest of your normal weight is distributed, just more of it.
Not to mention the power required to continuously accelerate. Or what happens to anything hitting you when you're traveling at that speed. Or needing to turn. Every answer is just a disguise for four more problems.
Even worse, what happens when you get to your destination? Will you find a perfect analog of Earth and with the same kind of star? Assuming the star is very similar to our Sun, then you can ask about the atmosphere of the planet. Pretty much you need 25% oxygen and 75% nitrogen and 14 pound per square inch pressure on the surface. Fine, is the gravity the same? If not, there may be problems getting around. Okay, so w…
Viruses and bacteria would not really be my worries. Unlikely they are compatible with our physiology. Maybe bacteria in sense of flesh eating or producing toxins as by-product, but nothing as infection I think.