Renton 17777 Posted April 25, 2007 Share Posted April 25, 2007 It would take 4.8 billion years to get there travelling at the speed of the fastest manned space craft (Apollo 10, about 25000 mph), according to the Times. Aye that's probably right given that sustained top speed for that distance, but that goes back to what I said, it's about acceleration/deceleration both how much you can accelerate/decelerate (in the context of how much you can generate and sustain.... and indeed survive if manned). There's a LOT more room for acceleration and deceleration (and therefore top speed and total overall speed) in 20 light years than there is for in 384400 km and 25000 mph would be pretty slow in that context, the only issue limiting your top speed at a certain rate of acceleration/deceleration being all sorts of shielding issues the closer you got to the speed of light. Plus remember that anything we built to go there would be built in orbit, not launched from the Earth and to it in one go like the Moon missions (like any manned mission to say Mars would likely be), which makes a huge difference to the "speeds" possible. It's still completely unfeasible to reach there in a human life time though isn't it? Hell, even if you went half the speed of light it would be half a lifetime. Not to mention the fact that so far we don't even have the technology to reach mars. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Renton 17777 Posted April 25, 2007 Share Posted April 25, 2007 Fop will refute that. No I think it's probably right, but based on a flawed premise (unless they have calculated it in the sense that particular craft could accelerate/decelerate over that distance (given enough fuel etc.), if so then dunno tbh. Fop man, do you have any grasp on humour? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gemmill 34462 Posted April 25, 2007 Share Posted April 25, 2007 Fop, I owe you an apology. That Albert Logic comparison was clearly WAY off base. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lazarus 0 Posted April 25, 2007 Share Posted April 25, 2007 It would take 4.8 billion years to get there travelling at the speed of the fastest manned space craft (Apollo 10, about 25000 mph), according to the Times. Aye that's probably right given that sustained top speed for that distance, but that goes back to what I said, it's about acceleration/deceleration both how much you can accelerate/decelerate (in the context of how much you can generate and sustain.... and indeed survive if manned). There's a LOT more room for acceleration and deceleration (and therefore top speed and total overall speed) in 20 light years than there is for in 384400 km and 25000 mph would be pretty slow in that context, the only issue limiting your top speed at a certain rate of acceleration/deceleration being all sorts of shielding issues the closer you got to the speed of light. Plus remember that anything we built to go there would be built in orbit, not launched from the Earth and to it in one go like the Moon missions (like any manned mission to say Mars would likely be), which makes a huge difference to the "speeds" possible. It's still completely unfeasible to reach there in a human life time though isn't it? Hell, even if you went half the speed of light it would be half a lifetime. Not to mention the fact that so far we don't even have the technology to reach mars. arnt the americans booking their holidays there in 20 years time? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sweetleftpeg 0 Posted April 25, 2007 Share Posted April 25, 2007 I reckon there is life somewhere in the universe, but we're so far apart and not advanced enough that we'll never meet. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Renton 17777 Posted April 25, 2007 Share Posted April 25, 2007 It would take 4.8 billion years to get there travelling at the speed of the fastest manned space craft (Apollo 10, about 25000 mph), according to the Times. Aye that's probably right given that sustained top speed for that distance, but that goes back to what I said, it's about acceleration/deceleration both how much you can accelerate/decelerate (in the context of how much you can generate and sustain.... and indeed survive if manned). There's a LOT more room for acceleration and deceleration (and therefore top speed and total overall speed) in 20 light years than there is for in 384400 km and 25000 mph would be pretty slow in that context, the only issue limiting your top speed at a certain rate of acceleration/deceleration being all sorts of shielding issues the closer you got to the speed of light. Plus remember that anything we built to go there would be built in orbit, not launched from the Earth and to it in one go like the Moon missions (like any manned mission to say Mars would likely be), which makes a huge difference to the "speeds" possible. It's still completely unfeasible to reach there in a human life time though isn't it? Hell, even if you went half the speed of light it would be half a lifetime. Not to mention the fact that so far we don't even have the technology to reach mars. arnt the americans booking their holidays there in 20 years time? No, they're put off by the fossilized bacteria. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Super_Steve_Howey 0 Posted April 25, 2007 Share Posted April 25, 2007 It would take 4.8 billion years to get there travelling at the speed of the fastest manned space craft (Apollo 10, about 25000 mph), according to the Times. Aye that's probably right given that sustained top speed for that distance, but that goes back to what I said, it's about acceleration/deceleration both how much you can accelerate/decelerate (in the context of how much you can generate and sustain.... and indeed survive if manned). There's a LOT more room for acceleration and deceleration (and therefore top speed and total overall speed) in 20 light years than there is for in 384400 km and 25000 mph would be pretty slow in that context, the only issue limiting your top speed at a certain rate of acceleration/deceleration being all sorts of shielding issues the closer you got to the speed of light. Plus remember that anything we built to go there would be built in orbit, not launched from the Earth and to it in one go like the Moon missions (like any manned mission to say Mars would likely be), which makes a huge difference to the "speeds" possible. It's still completely unfeasible to reach there in a human life time though isn't it? Hell, even if you went half the speed of light it would be half a lifetime. Not to mention the fact that so far we don't even have the technology to reach mars. 10 years shirley? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gemmill 34462 Posted April 25, 2007 Share Posted April 25, 2007 Victoria Principal (Pam Ewing of Dallas fame) is already booked on the first Virgin Galactic (or whatever it's called) flight into space. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fop 1 Posted April 25, 2007 Share Posted April 25, 2007 It's still completely unfeasible to reach there in a human life time though isn't it? Hell, even if you went half the speed of light it would be half a lifetime. Not to mention the fact that so far we don't even have the technology to reach mars. Aye you're not going to do it in a human life time without some sort of "faster than light" travel really (which is a whole new can of worms even if it IS possible [given that the galaxy itself moves]), but you're not going to get anything close to speed of light travel conventionally I'd have thought for many reasons. We could reach Mars (manned) with our technology though I think, but it's never really about technology so much as money. Which is probably what will stop the US moonbase idea. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Renton 17777 Posted April 25, 2007 Share Posted April 25, 2007 It would take 4.8 billion years to get there travelling at the speed of the fastest manned space craft (Apollo 10, about 25000 mph), according to the Times. Aye that's probably right given that sustained top speed for that distance, but that goes back to what I said, it's about acceleration/deceleration both how much you can accelerate/decelerate (in the context of how much you can generate and sustain.... and indeed survive if manned). There's a LOT more room for acceleration and deceleration (and therefore top speed and total overall speed) in 20 light years than there is for in 384400 km and 25000 mph would be pretty slow in that context, the only issue limiting your top speed at a certain rate of acceleration/deceleration being all sorts of shielding issues the closer you got to the speed of light. Plus remember that anything we built to go there would be built in orbit, not launched from the Earth and to it in one go like the Moon missions (like any manned mission to say Mars would likely be), which makes a huge difference to the "speeds" possible. It's still completely unfeasible to reach there in a human life time though isn't it? Hell, even if you went half the speed of light it would be half a lifetime. Not to mention the fact that so far we don't even have the technology to reach mars. 10 years shirley? Erm, 40, shirley? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sweetleftpeg 0 Posted April 25, 2007 Share Posted April 25, 2007 Victoria Principal (Pam Ewing of Dallas fame) is already booked on the first Virgin Galactic (or whatever it's called) flight into space. Fascinating. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Super_Steve_Howey 0 Posted April 25, 2007 Share Posted April 25, 2007 It would take 4.8 billion years to get there travelling at the speed of the fastest manned space craft (Apollo 10, about 25000 mph), according to the Times. Aye that's probably right given that sustained top speed for that distance, but that goes back to what I said, it's about acceleration/deceleration both how much you can accelerate/decelerate (in the context of how much you can generate and sustain.... and indeed survive if manned). There's a LOT more room for acceleration and deceleration (and therefore top speed and total overall speed) in 20 light years than there is for in 384400 km and 25000 mph would be pretty slow in that context, the only issue limiting your top speed at a certain rate of acceleration/deceleration being all sorts of shielding issues the closer you got to the speed of light. Plus remember that anything we built to go there would be built in orbit, not launched from the Earth and to it in one go like the Moon missions (like any manned mission to say Mars would likely be), which makes a huge difference to the "speeds" possible. It's still completely unfeasible to reach there in a human life time though isn't it? Hell, even if you went half the speed of light it would be half a lifetime. Not to mention the fact that so far we don't even have the technology to reach mars. 10 years shirley? Erm, 40, shirley? Ah right, forgot to carry the 2. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest alex Posted April 25, 2007 Share Posted April 25, 2007 You have to wonder what there is to be gained by manned space exploration tbh compared to other ways in which resources could be used. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fop 1 Posted April 25, 2007 Share Posted April 25, 2007 Fop will refute that. No I think it's probably right, but based on a flawed premise (unless they have calculated it in the sense that particular craft could accelerate/decelerate over that distance (given enough fuel etc.), if so then dunno tbh. Fop man, do you have any grasp on humour? I can't be arsed tbh, basically going to get abuse either way, so better my way IMO. Fop, I owe you an apology. That Albert Logic comparison was clearly WAY off base. I might take that more seriously if I thought you had the attention span to even read one of those strips. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gemmill 34462 Posted April 25, 2007 Share Posted April 25, 2007 Victoria Principal (Pam Ewing of Dallas fame) is already booked on the first Virgin Galactic (or whatever it's called) flight into space. Fascinating. Some of the posts in this thread and you picked THAT one to sarcastically label as "fascinating". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Super_Steve_Howey 0 Posted April 25, 2007 Share Posted April 25, 2007 You have to wonder what there is to be gained by manned space exploration tbh compared to other ways in which resources could be used. The risk that one asteroid can wipe out the human race Didn't Stephen Hawking say recently we need to start exploring? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest alex Posted April 25, 2007 Share Posted April 25, 2007 Fop can't be arsed to the extent that he answers every single post seriously even when it's a blatant joke. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fop 1 Posted April 25, 2007 Share Posted April 25, 2007 You have to wonder what there is to be gained by manned space exploration tbh compared to other ways in which resources could be used. That's what has killed it historically and likely will kill it in the future. Just too expensive. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Renton 17777 Posted April 25, 2007 Share Posted April 25, 2007 You have to wonder what there is to be gained by manned space exploration tbh compared to other ways in which resources could be used. I honestly think it's the ultimate goal of mankind. I also don't see a problem with doing it and feeding the starving/looking after the planet at the same time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
luckyluke 1 Posted April 25, 2007 Share Posted April 25, 2007 Victoria Principal (Pam Ewing of Dallas fame) is already booked on the first Virgin Galactic (or whatever it's called) flight into space. I heard William Shatner is also. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest alex Posted April 25, 2007 Share Posted April 25, 2007 You have to wonder what there is to be gained by manned space exploration tbh compared to other ways in which resources could be used. The risk that one asteroid can wipe out the human race Didn't Stephen Hawking say recently we need to start exploring? The distances seem so vast it seems like a waste of effort to me. I doubt there's much we can do to prevent something like that and we are nowhere near sending manned spacecraft to the outer reaches of the Solar System, let alone to another one. Who knows though? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Super_Steve_Howey 0 Posted April 25, 2007 Share Posted April 25, 2007 We're half way there anyway http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spacecraft_pr...laws_of_physics Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fop 1 Posted April 25, 2007 Share Posted April 25, 2007 Fop can't be arsed to the extent that he answers every single post seriously even when it's a blatant joke. As I said I'd get abuse either way so what does it matter? If I'd answered it with "no I won't" would that have reached Gemmials pinnacles of wit and being glorified as such, nah. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest alex Posted April 25, 2007 Share Posted April 25, 2007 You have to wonder what there is to be gained by manned space exploration tbh compared to other ways in which resources could be used. I honestly think it's the ultimate goal of mankind. I also don't see a problem with doing it and feeding the starving/looking after the planet at the same time. Neither are being achieved now though. I think it's a white elephant tbh. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Super_Steve_Howey 0 Posted April 25, 2007 Share Posted April 25, 2007 You have to wonder what there is to be gained by manned space exploration tbh compared to other ways in which resources could be used. The risk that one asteroid can wipe out the human race Didn't Stephen Hawking say recently we need to start exploring? The distances seem so vast it seems like a waste of effort to me. I doubt there's much we can do to prevent something like that and we are nowhere near sending manned spacecraft to the outer reaches of the Solar System, let alone to another one. Who knows though? All you have to do is look at what was 'impossible' 50 years ago Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now