When will we reach the Moon, Mars, Jupiter, another star and another galaxy...

Alex_6n2 · 26 May 2011 at 17:45

AcidHell2 said:
Where do you get that from?

Apart from the super Orion weighing in at 8million tons. The rest don't even way 200,000 altogether.

On the wiki it says for the interstellar missions (For the lighter Momentum limited design):

Mass of empty ship (metric tons):
100,000 t (incl.50,000 t structure+payload)

+Number of bombs = total bomb mass (each 1MT bomb weighs 1 metric ton):
300,000t

From which I infer that 200,000t of nuclear mass is needed. The departure mass is quote at 400,000t for the lighter option. 40,000,000t (!!!) for the heavier one.

Glaucus · 26 May 2011 at 17:49

That's for a theoretical one not a purposes ship as you say it's also bomb weight not nuclear fuel.

Alex_6n2 · 26 May 2011 at 17:54

Either way, there is A LOT of fuel needed, as you would expect. Even the other calculations done back in the 60s (Which seem to be extremely idealised) resulted in a considerable propulsion payload, and that is for inter PLANETARY missions. I thought we were talking interstellar? When you consider the realities of even the smaller requirements its a currently unrealistic prospect given costs/technical challenges/total available nuclear material on the Earth (Neglecting what we can make ourselves)

SexyGreyFox · 26 May 2011 at 18:04

Metalface Mark said:
The post you replied to was 2 years old, you dimpled yourself there.

I was fully aware of the date of the OP but it still needed replying to.
He may have done his research by now.

NeilFawcett said:
You know you shouldn't give numpties who think the lunar landings were fake a single moment of your time! 2 minutes on google would answer every conspiracy raised about the matter.

The people who endorse such thinking are in reality either wanting attention or help...

We should always help the tin foil hatters of this world.

Garonazz · 26 May 2011 at 18:04

Landing on mars 200 years ?! I hope you're kidding.

EU and US is planning manned missions on mars circa 2030.

Glaucus · 26 May 2011 at 18:16

Alex_6n2 said:
Either way, there is A LOT of fuel needed, as you would expect. Even the other calculations done back in the 60s (Which seem to be extremely idealised) resulted in a considerable propulsion payload, and that is for inter PLANETARY missions. I thought we were talking interstellar? When you consider the realities of even the smaller requirements its a currently unrealistic prospect given costs/technical challenges/total available nuclear material on the Earth (Neglecting what we can make ourselves)

really, those maths are based on weapons at the time, a lot less effecient than modern ones and the bombs are tiny, even on teh theoretical ones, the one ton bombs are mainly made up of non nuclear material to help transfer the blast wave. Those numbers sound huge but just look how much steel we produce a year. millions of tons. it really is possible.

there is allready 1.6million kilos of highly enriched uranium and 500,000 kilos of plutonium weapon grade fuel in the world.

Tefal · 26 May 2011 at 18:18

You do have to carry a large amount of Polyethylene too though to drop between the bombs and the ship.

Garonazz · 27 May 2011 at 11:12

- A human lands on the Moon again About 10 years
- A human lands on Mars 20-25 years
- A human reaches Jupiter (Arthur C Clarke said we'd already be there ) 50-60 years
- A probe or human reaches another star 100 years
- A probe or human reaches another galaxy 250-300 years

NeilF · 27 May 2011 at 12:10

Garonazz said:
- A probe or human reaches another star 100 years

Really?

Garonazz said:
- A probe or human reaches another galaxy 250-300 years

REALLY????

Garonazz · 27 May 2011 at 23:41

NeilFawcett said:
Really?

REALLY????

Yes REALLY.

You know absolutely f all about our future, and so do I. But judging on how technology has moved through 1800 till now, EVERYTHING is possible. Optimism is what has driven our entire civilisation through the Bronze Age till now, and before, of course. People like you stall the evolution down. Prove me wrong or spare yourself ignorant posts.

Six7th · 27 May 2011 at 23:52

Garonazz said:
Yes REALLY.

You know absolutely f all about our future, and so do I. But judging on how technology has moved through 1800 till now, EVERYTHING is possible. Optimism is what has driven our entire civilisation through the Bronze Age till now, and before, of course. People like you stall the evolution down. Prove me wrong or spare yourself ignorant posts.

Considering our closest galaxy is 25,000 light years away, there's no way we could reach it in 250-300 years, if ever. However our closest star, Proxima Centauri, is about 4 light years away so I'd imagine we'd be able to reach it in a couple of hundred years time.

According to this,

http://www.universetoday.com/15403/how-long-would-it-take-to-travel-to-the-nearest-star/

We could do it in 85 with an Orion type craft.

Garonazz · 28 May 2011 at 00:38

Six7th said:
Considering our closest galaxy is 25,000 light years away, there's no way we could reach it in 250-300 years, if ever. However our closest star, Proxima Centauri, is about 4 light years away so I'd imagine we'd be able to reach it in a couple of hundred years time.

According to this,

http://www.universetoday.com/15403/how-long-would-it-take-to-travel-to-the-nearest-star/

We could do it in 85 with an Orion type craft.

I never meant it with our current gen spacecraft. It's obvious it's impossible just now. What I meant was that in 200 year's technology will be so advanced that travel will be much more advanced than it is now, thus allowing for exploration / travel to another star / galaxy. Plus what we will find on Mars in 50 years time or so might even speed the process up.

Deiwos · 28 May 2011 at 00:44

Garonazz said:
I never meant it with our current gen spacecraft. It's obvious it's impossible just now. What I meant was that in 200 year's technology will be so advanced that travel will be much more advanced than it is now, thus allowing for exploration / travel to another star / galaxy. Plus what we will find on Mars in 50 years time or so might even speed the process up.

And what exactly do you expect us to find on Mars?

Garonazz · 28 May 2011 at 00:45

Deiwos said:
And what exactly do you expect us to find on Mars?

Perhaps something like new fuel.

Inb4 'No because...'

GD Guru's :rolleyes:

NeilF · 28 May 2011 at 11:35

Garonazz said:
I never meant it with our current gen spacecraft. It's obvious it's impossible just now. What I meant was that in 200 year's technology will be so advanced that travel will be much more advanced than it is now, thus allowing for exploration / travel to another star / galaxy. Plus what we will find on Mars in 50 years time or so might even speed the process up.

But you're proposing we can travel 25,000 light years in a few tens of years? Therefore undoing every law of physics we know? And if such methods of travel exist, then why are races from our galaxy (& indeed other galaxies) not visiting us right now? Why is our galaxy not like a busy motorway given such ease of travel?

Hmmm...

I think people need to forget about Star Wars and understand interstellar travel may actually be so difficult, biological life forms may never be able to make it, and certainly not in single life spans... And just maybe this is why the universe seems so quiet (SETI), because life forms simply cannot escape easily from their own systems, so simply stagnate and die out...

Glaucus · 28 May 2011 at 11:45

Garonazz said:
Perhaps something like new fuel.

Inb4 'No because...'

GD Guru's

New fuel? Why would we find new fuel? The galaxy is made up of the same elements.
What's really going to push technology in the coming decades, is when computers can understand science and create computer designs on an evolution like process.

Glaucus · 28 May 2011 at 11:46

NeilFawcett said:
But you're proposing we can travel 25,000 light years in a few tens of years? Therefore undoing every law of physics we know? And if such methods of travel exist, then why are races from our galaxy (& indeed other galaxies) not visiting us right now? Why is our galaxy not like a busy motorway given such ease of travel?

...

Relativity. Travel at 99.9999999% of speed of light and it will take a lot lot lot less that 25,000 years. To get there, if needed generation ships as well.
Star wars/trek type travel is almost and likely impossible. Due to time dilation. But we will still swarm over the galaxy, just won't be travelling back and forth between distance places, probably be limited to a couple of light years.

paulh · 28 May 2011 at 13:08

magick said:
In some circles it's common knowledge that test flights to the end of the star system were being done back in the 70s/80s using exotic technology. NASA is nothing more than a big PR act.

Really? Source! that would be an interesting read!

Edit,Oops, just spotted it was magick, never mind....

matja · 28 May 2011 at 13:18

If we could accelerate at 1G for 28 years, we could make it to Andromeda galaxy (2.5 million light-years distant), due to time-dilation effects of relativistic travel.
1G would also make the trip rather comfy to our earth-bound bodies.

http://www.desy.de/user/projects/Physics/Relativity/SR/rocket.html

The problem is, of course, carrying enough fuel and maintaining that 1G acceleration.

NeilF · 28 May 2011 at 14:27

AcidHell2 said:
Relativity. Travel at 99.9999999% of speed of light and it will take a lot lot lot less that 25,000 years. To get there, if needed generation ships as well.
Star wars/trek type travel is almost and likely impossible. Due to time dilation. But we will still swarm over the galaxy, just won't be travelling back and forth between distance places, probably be limited to a couple of light years.

So you're suggesting we'll be able to travel that fast within the next 1-200 years?

Don't forget I was questioning the suggestion of reaching ANOTHER GALAXY within 200-250 years!