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

Glaucus · 29 May 2011 at 23:23

NeilFawcett said:
So you stand by the suggestion that we'll most likely be in another galaxy in 250 years of relative time then? You think this is a realistic and probable suggestion?

I've not said anything... But I don't think we'll ever get to another galaxy, unless we figure out some God like abilities to go through worm holes. And I don't believe we'll ever do that...

no I don't think it's likely at all and have said that, the problem was several of you saying its impossible.

Why don't you think it's likely? As shown with time dilation it is certainly possible in human life spans, we just have to find out how to achieve those speeds. Of which there are a lot of theories and some possible technological path ways.

I couldn't even begin to come up with a time frame. As technology advances so fast and when computers start designing it's going to suddenly leap forward. But breakthroughs like that who knows, then you need the economy and will to actually build it.

PermaBanned · 29 May 2011 at 23:24

If we don't ever go to another galaxy i don't think it will be because we don't have the technology, or because it's physically impossible, or because we don't have the motivation. Unfortunately i think it's far more likely that we'll be destroyed before we get to that point.

GreatAuk · 30 May 2011 at 01:23

OK, wild speculation, I like this kind of thing.
I'll guess in terms of when such a mission might be launched rather than when it gets to its destination.
- A human lands on the Moon again - 30 years
- A human lands on Mars - 60 years
- A human reaches Jupiter (Arthur C Clarke said we'd already be there ) - 100 years
- A probe or human reaches another star - Probe I suppose 100 years, human 150 years.
- A probe or human reaches another galaxy - 1000 years.

But I suppose maybe this is far too optimistic - is there any good reason for a human to go to Mars? - Surely robots would do just as much as humans could, but they don't need so much space and added weight to carry all the way there and back (assuming that a robot replacement mission for a human one might have similar goals, which might involve carting back some Mars rock).

Human space exploration seems to be just too costly and difficult to justify. Maybe it will be 100s of years until people decide it's worth spending money on going to Mars. I wish there were more 'grand expeditions', even if they do seem a bit pointless - just to get some excitement going, maybe some useful materials and engineering development out of the whole thing too (like with the moon landings).

Art is seen as a legitimate way of wasting money, human space exploration should be too.

I want to live on a moon colony

.

NeilF · 30 May 2011 at 10:08

GreatAuk said:
OK, wild speculation, I like this kind of thing.
I'll guess in terms of when such a mission might be launched rather than when it gets to its destination.
- A human lands on the Moon again - 30 years
- A human lands on Mars - 60 years
- A human reaches Jupiter (Arthur C Clarke said we'd already be there ) - 100 years
- A probe or human reaches another star - Probe I suppose 100 years, human 150 years.
- A probe or human reaches another galaxy - 1000 years.

But I suppose maybe this is far too optimistic - is there any good reason for a human to go to Mars? - Surely robots would do just as much as humans could, but they don't need so much space and added weight to carry all the way there and back (assuming that a robot replacement mission for a human one might have similar goals, which might involve carting back some Mars rock).

Human space exploration seems to be just too costly and difficult to justify. Maybe it will be 100s of years until people decide it's worth spending money on going to Mars. I wish there were more 'grand expeditions', even if they do seem a bit pointless - just to get some excitement going, maybe some useful materials and engineering development out of the whole thing too (like with the moon landings).

Art is seen as a legitimate way of wasting money, human space exploration should be too.

I want to live on a moon colony .

I'd agree with those estimates except for:-
Man to a star in 150 years... I suspect much longer with the risk of maybe never...

And a proble to another galaxy, never...

Brookert · 30 May 2011 at 10:53

If every single country paid into one space agency (wishful thinking) and half of what was spent on arms globally was spent on space exploration instead, we would be so much further.

Von Smallhausen · 30 May 2011 at 11:07

PermaBanned said:
That distance is getting smaller though, isn't it?

I'm sure science will account for that.

Galaxy jump technology is too much for my little mind to comprehend.

Garonazz · 30 May 2011 at 11:27

We seem to have a lot of people from the future here, playing with us and denying our guesses without any slight of proof. Amusing, those aliens (NeilF)

Tell again. What's it like on earth in 1000 years time ? Im interested

Tigjaw · 1 Jun 2011 at 16:56

Sorry for resurrecting the thread again!

Nerusy said:
What if we land on mars in 30 years and find out some spaceships which will propel our own understanding thousands of years forward.

Seriously? *steps away slowly*

Nerusy said:
You don't have to be such a nazi when it comes to wishful thinking of others.
Bottom line we're all pretty much wishfully guessing when we will get to another galaxy, there is no need to impose your "realistic view" onto others. If everybody was a "realist" humanity wouldn't achieve the heights we got to.
Be a visionary.
edit: just in case you think I've got my head in the clouds my personal view is rather pessimistic and I can't comprehend(as in I know it exists but I can't come in terms that it is truly possible) the ability to travel backwards or wormholes for super travel across the space but good thing we're not in charge of innovation, right.

For the nazi comment I would like to refer you to Godwin's Law .
Nevertheless I like your style, you are to me as I am to my brother. Yes He IS that much more of a 'realist' than me.

AcidHell2 said:
Found anonline calculation.
A constant acceleration of 1g and a constant deceleration of 1g you could travel 25000ly in smidge under 20 years. Assuming online calculator is correct.

It sounds so easy when the number is a '1' doesn't it but you're ignoring what the 'g' means. Also how do you propose a constant acceleration in the vaccum of space where things can't slow down and can't speed up naturally? Yes I believe the calculation is correct, at least I've heard that notion many times.

sunama said:
100 years ago, if you had asked how long would it take to travel to the other side of the World, you would've thought, "by ship it will probably take about 4 weeks.

But you can't always work like that. We used to think the earth was at the centre of the universe and solar system, now we know that it isn't. By that notion then we could say "we used to think that, so in the future we may realise that the earth is actually riding on a turtle's back" - That's not sarcasm, it's a Terry Pratchet reference.

We now know things that allow us to imagine what may be possible in the future. Those 'things' such as ''e = mc(squared)" are factual and have designed our present lives and if speculative science violates those 'things' it remains speculative.

Besides I could easily argue that in the 20th century people thought we'd become far more advanced than we actually are. People expected us to have already travelled our whole solar system, they expected us to be using holograms and for us to have cured cancer.

We have reached a wall for many technological 'ticks' because now we actually understand things we didn't before and we're left mostly with 'tocks'; improvements on what we have (note I said 'mostly' - don't tell me off for saying that we're not going to find anything new).

sunama said:
Could we not harness solar energy? This would be (almost) an infinite power source. {SNIP}

I think you're misunderstanding the essence of 'infinite', it doesn't mean an infinite drizzling supply it means an immediate source of infinite power; i.e. immediately sourcing more energy than there exists.

sunama said:
With regards to galaxies drifting away and the space ship heading to the wrong location, we shall need to develop an AI, which is able to correct the course of the ship. I course correction AI shouldn't be too difficult to achieve.

That is a good point true, I'm not sure how close we are to understanding the movement of spacetime itself and galactic drift but I'm pretty sure computers will have to do the math for us if we are going to work it out.

Garonazz said:
Tell again. What's it like on earth in 1000 years time ? Im interested

It's a bit grimy but the England team is actually pretty decent (joke). By the way I wrote down the lottery numbers for every week since you posted. Get a pen ready..

*crackles*...*connection lost*.

P.S: Anyway, like I said I really didn't want to get into a debate when I made my first post in the threat, the sequence of events was:

1. Thread asks people to post their opinions.
2. I post my opinion.
3. My opinion was ridiculed thereby breaking the rules of engagement of this thread.
4. I defended my opinion.

I had no problem with people having alternate opinions but my opinion was questioned so I was called to respond.

Nerusy like I said I appreciated your post even though you called me a nazi

So I wanted to explain why I was defending my opinion so intently. Believe it or not I'm not as pessimistic as I've made myself appear to be, I just was made to defend my opinion.

Glaucus · 1 Jun 2011 at 17:03

Can't slow down and can't speed up?

It would require a prolusion device, which we have many that can do those levels of acceleration. It just the time scale and the fuel. Which means we would require huge leap forawrad in efficiency or totally new devices. There are however lots of purposed systems.
1g means accelerating at a constant 9.8m/s.

The problem was not your opinion as such, but saying it was impossible. If you say I can't see humans ever creating such propulsion devices but it's theoretically possible. Then fine but to say it's simply impossible is just wrong.

PermaBanned · 1 Jun 2011 at 17:08

AcidHell2 said:
Can't slow down and can't speed up?

It would require a prolusion device, which we have many that can do those levels of acceleration. It just the time scale and the fuel. Which means we would require huge lea forawrad in efficiency or totally new devices. There are however lots of purposed systems.
1g means accelerating at a constant 9.8m/s.

That may well be, but it's still not possible to physically travel faster than light.

Also, thanks for the chance, seems i didn't actually respond to the OP:

A human lands on the Moon again - 2020s
A human lands on Mars - 2030s
A human reaches Jupiter - 2050s
A probe or human reaches another star - 2100s
A probe or human reaches another galaxy - 3000s, although we probably won't last that long

Glaucus · 1 Jun 2011 at 17:10

PermaBanned said:
That may well be, but it's still not possible to physically travel faster than light.

Never said it was, but you don't need to. Also there is one mathematical way around it, with are current understandings of physics.

PermaBanned · 1 Jun 2011 at 17:18

AcidHell2 said:
Never said it was, but you don't need to. Also there is one mathematical way around it, with are current understandings of physics.

But at some point during this constant acceleration of 1G surely you're going to hit that barrier? What's this 'loophole' you refer to?

Xelene · 1 Jun 2011 at 17:19

Brookert said:
If every single country paid into one space agency (wishful thinking) and half of what was spent on arms globally was spent on space exploration instead, we would be so much further.

Nah, we'd have a massively inefficient bureaucracy that did everything by committee and never achieved much.

Usher · 1 Jun 2011 at 17:41

Too many people posting here have Startrek syndrome,

never mind when are we going to another star system or galaxy- a first priority is to create artificial mavity other than in a test facility before any long distance travel could even be considered.
Added to that the presumed use of Cryonics to keep humans suspended for hundreds of years during travel is in it's infancy.

Glaucus · 1 Jun 2011 at 17:56

PermaBanned said:
But at some point during this constant acceleration of 1G surely you're going to hit that barrier? What's this 'loophole' you refer to?

Loop hole http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alcubierre_drive

Those times aren't based on going faster than speed of light, it's just that due to time dilation which physically stops you reaching the speed of light you can travel thousands of light years within a humans life span, but at no point break the speed of light.

PermaBanned · 1 Jun 2011 at 17:58

AcidHell2 said:
Loop hole http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alcubierre_drive

Those times aren't based on going faster than speed of light, it's just that due to time dilation which physically stops you reaching the speed of light you can travel thousands of light years within a humans life span, but at no point break the speed of light.

Ah, warping space? I wouldn't have said that was physically travelling faster than light, but effectively. You don't go faster than light, but you get from one point to another in less time than it would take light to.

Glaucus · 1 Jun 2011 at 18:03

Yep a loop hole, rather than breaking speed of light.

realscot · 1 Jun 2011 at 20:05

From what the discovery channel has told me, going to the moon and establishing a base there is the next step forward in space exploration because it's an ideal staging area for a mission farther away. If they do infact find water at the poles on the moon, that means oxygen to breath and hydrogen for fuel, i'm not 100% sure if they know for a fact there is water there yet.
I know that they say there is an abundance of water on mars though, also another possible place to have a base for missions farther afield.
The main problems with living in space are as already mentioned lack of mavity which our bodies need, the solar radiation which is a big killer, so any base on the moon or mars would likley consist of an underground area.
How to get around in space, well look at Voyager 2 it's traveling at 15.464 km/s, its 8.8 billion miles away from earth, and thats taken the best part of 34 years.
At the moment the only really sustainable way to cover vast distances are ion engines powered by either solar or nuclear.
Voyager 2 will take almost 3 million years to get to Alpha Centauri (our nearest star at 4.2 light years) assuming it was heading there now, and that it maintained its current speed. It's covering a million miles a day roughly so not exactly hanging about.
From what I can read on ion engines they say accelerating +10,000mph would take 20 months and use 81kg's of xenon propellant. So I guess currently the limit is how much fuel can you carry. I assume slowing down when you get there takes the same amount of fuel as accelerating does, minus any mavity you manage to capture to scrub off speed I guess.
So... In my opinion with current technology man will never leave the solar system, probably never go farther than mars. Guessing any further ahead is pure speculation, and is restricted only be the means of propultion used.

Dugganator · 1 Jun 2011 at 20:37

PermaBanned said:
A human lands on the Moon again - 2020s
A human lands on Mars - 2030s
A human reaches Jupiter - 2050s
A probe or human reaches another star - 2100s
A probe or human reaches another galaxy - 3000s, although we probably won't last that long

The only way this would change suddenly would be if we found or developed something that changed our ways of thinking and science as such.

Well I would like this timescale to be true at least.

Tigjaw · 1 Jun 2011 at 20:52

AcidHell2 said:
Can't slow down and can't speed up?

Ah you caught me there, I meant can't slow down and can't speed up naturally. Nevertheless it's not important.

AcidHell2 said:
It would require a prolusion device, which we have many that can do those levels of acceleration. It just the time scale and the fuel. Which means we would require huge leap forawrad in efficiency or totally new devices. There are however lots of purposed systems.
1g means accelerating at a constant 9.8m/s.

The problem was not your opinion as such, but saying it was impossible. If you say I can't see humans ever creating such propulsion devices but it's theoretically possible. Then fine but to say it's simply impossible is just wrong.

But that's not my opinion, you can't give me my opinion.

My opinion is that while there are theories but none of them - in my opinion - will come to fruition - i.e. they will either be found to be impossible or impracticle and in science; impractice means impossible.

Besides you've missed the point; this whole time you've been annoyed that I've been apparently trying to prove you wrong, but that's not how it started. It started by you ridiculing my opinion that belongs to me and that is my right as a human being to have.

Saying elements of speculative science will be proven possible is just as bold as saying that it is impossible. That's why we have the word 'speculative'. You're mad at me for being only as bold as yourself with one exception; you're the one in favour of speculative science.

About the Alcubierre drive... have you read the overwhelming amount of problems with it as well as the little professional support for it?