|
Started by
|
Message
|
dola
Posted:
Wed Oct 29, 2003 7:42 pm
Joined: 29 Oct 2003
Posts: 1
|
|
|
|
|
I haven't had the time to dig through the whole site. So if this question or topic has not been covered we can start here I suppose. What is preventing humans from interstellar travel BESIDES technology? I'm really reaching, and look forward to the smarter people out there giving me some good points of view. Thanks (c;
|
|
Marc
Site Admin
Posted:
Sun Nov 09, 2003 7:11 pm
Joined: 24 Oct 2003
Posts: 106
Location: Ireland
|
|
|
|
hey dola,
welcome to the forum.
the problem with interstellar travel, manned at any rate, is the extraordinarily long time it would take to travel to another star.
Astronauts could expect to be cooped up in a spacecraft for decades.
Also, I think that we have so much of our own solar system left to discover that it would be wasteful of resources to engage in interstellar travel.
Anyone got any other thoughts?
-
marc
|
|
MoonBeams
Posted:
Tue Nov 18, 2003 8:34 pm
Joined: 18 Nov 2003
Posts: 2
Location: Earth
|
|
|
|
It would be smarter if we explore our own home system first, but as humans, we have this strong, unexplainable, urge to explore. And the more we do so, the further we want to go.
Humans are able to take such a mission, the interstellar travel from one star to another, the major down side would be the many, many years it would take to get the needed information from the travels.
Also, the supplies needed, would take up so much space in the holding bays. And what about protection? Medical supplies for if an unknown epidemic (sp?) breaks out. That would be either an aweful big space craft, or a lot of empty ones to tow back home.
What a gas bill that would be! 
|
|
alozano
Posted:
Sat Nov 22, 2003 4:50 pm
Joined: 22 Nov 2003
Posts: 1
|
|
|
|
Hi,
If I am not mistaken, the closest star is at 4 light years or so (alpha centauri?). Thus, the trip would take 4 years (to get there) IF we travelled at light speed. Of course, reaching a speed near light-speed would consume a huge amount of energy, which I don't think we can produce at the time.
I think I remember somebody from NASA talking about a possible manned mission to Mars. I believe they said that it would take up to 5 years total for the crew to return to Earth. This is because you have to wait for the planets to be aligned in "minimal energy configurations", so you have to spend less "gas" by using gravitational pulls instead.
So if they estimate 5 years for a trip to Mars, a trip to other star would be quite long.
Alvaro
|
|
MoonBeams
Posted:
Mon Dec 08, 2003 11:49 pm
Joined: 18 Nov 2003
Posts: 2
Location: Earth
|
|
|
|
Alvaro,
you are close, but not quite. Proxima Cantauri (V645) is the nearest known star to our own. And is at a distance of 1.295 pc (4.224 ly).
Mars is really a good goal, but I have my sights set on something else. Pluto. We should be getting a mission going out that way in the next 10 or more years.
-Moony
|
|
conscendo_1064
Posted:
Sat Apr 23, 2005 5:21 am
Joined: 10 Jan 2005
Posts: 25
|
|
|
|
|
MoonBeams I totally agree with yor argument.
|
|
SkyBoard
Site Admin
Posted:
Sat Apr 30, 2005 11:50 pm
Joined: 05 Feb 2005
Posts: 24
Location: Los Angeles, CA
|
|
|
|
Believe it or not, Embee, there's a NASA mission being set up right now, if it hasn't launched already. I forgot what it's called, but a little research will tell you all about it. 
_________________
"Your God may be in the details, but mine's in the process." - Ian Malcolm
|
|
|
|
