• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

How Long Would it Take to Travel to the Nearest Star?

mbig

onomatopoeic
DP Veteran
Joined
May 14, 2009
Messages
10,350
Reaction score
4,989
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
A question most would like the answer to, and those with even a ballpark idea would like to see hastened.
No Star Trek 'Warp speed' ...alas.

How Long Would it Take to Travel to the Nearest Star?
by IAN O'NEILL

First choice would probably be Proxima Centauri, the closest star to the Solar System. Part of a triple star system called Alpha Centauri; Proxima is 4.22 light years from Earth. Alpha Centauri is actually the brightest star of the three in the system, and so the system is named after this star. Alpha Centauri is part of a closely orbiting binary about 4.37 light years from Earth.
[......]
Slowest: Ion drive propulsion, 81,000 years
Ion drive propulsion was considered to be science fiction only a few decades ago. In recent years however, the technology to support ion propulsion has moved from theory and into practice in a big way.
[......]
Fastest: Gravitational assists, 19,000 years

The Helios solar mission (Deep Space Network)
The 1976 Helios 2 mission was launched to study the interplanetary medium from 0.3AU to 1AU to the Sun. At the time, Helios 1 (launched in 1974) and Helios 2 held the record for closest approach to the Sun. However, to this day, Helios 2 holds the record for fastest ever spacecraft to travel in space.
[......]
Fastest (theoretical): Nuclear Pulse Propulsion, 85 years

Project Orion, using nuclear explosions as a propellant (NASA)
Nuclear pulse propulsion is a theoretically possible form of fast space travel. Very early on in the development of the development of the atomic bomb, nuclear pulse propulsion was proposed in 1947 and Project Orion was born in 1958 to investigate interplanetary space travel. In a nutshell, Project Orion hoped to harness the power of pulsed nuclear explosions to provide a huge thrust with very high specific impulse. It is a major advantage to extract maximum energy from a spacecraft’s fuel to minimize cost and maximize range, therefore a high specific impulse creates faster, longer-range spaceflight for minimum investment.
[......]
 
I thought Sol was the closest star?



Problem with traveling fast is mapping a rout. Having some way to scan hundreds of thousands of miles ahead of you is integral to not hitting anything (and dying as a result) when you are traveling thousands of miles per minute.
 
Actually we already have a theoretical basis for an FTL workaround... the Alcubierre drive. Not feasible as of yet, but the fact that there is a working hypothesis is encouraging that one day the problem will be solved.
 
Actually we already have a theoretical basis for an FTL workaround... the Alcubierre drive. Not feasible as of yet, but the fact that there is a working hypothesis is encouraging that one day the problem will be solved.

That was going to be my reply; but you beat me to it, damn you.
 
Actually we already have a theoretical basis for an FTL workaround... the Alcubierre drive. Not feasible as of yet, but the fact that there is a working hypothesis is encouraging that one day the problem will be solved.

The Alcubierre Concept is probably what is needed to ever have any viable interstellar travel.
But it's far More theoretical than the Nuclear Pulse Drive the article in the OP mentioned.

Alcubierre drive - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Experiments

Main article: White–Juday warp-field interferometer White

In 2012 a NASA laboratory announced that they have constructed an interferometer that they claim will detect the spacial distortions produced by the expanding and contracting spacetime of the Alcubierre metric. The work has been described in Warp Field Mechanics 101, a NASA paper by Harold Sonny White.[28][29] Alcubierre has expressed skepticism about the experiment, saying "from my understanding there is No way it can be done, probably not for Centuries If at all."[30].

In science fiction

Faster-than-light travel often appears in science fiction, where a wide variety of imaginary propulsion methods are postulated; not all of these are based on the Alcubierre drive or any other physical theory.

The Star Trek television series used the term "warp drive" to describe their method of faster than light travel. The Alcubierre theory, or anything similar, did not exist when the series was conceived, but Alcubierre stated in an email to William Shatner that his theory was directly inspired by the term used in the show,[31] and references it in his 1994 paper.[32]

The OP inspired by the string on Life-possible Solar System Gliese 667 posted by rhinefire yesterday.
That group is 22 Light Years away, 5x as far as Proxima Centauri.
So even using the still theoretical, but I think more possible Nuclear Pulse drive, that would be 425 Years.. one way.
If we're gonna launch we should go some place interesting. The Centauri trio looks pretty dead.

I'm actually heartened there's a life-possible system that close, the majority of the few other interesting exoplanets are way out there.
Hopefully other propulsion/travel concepts will also emerge.
Maybe the Gliesens are already watching/here. Alternatively, 22 LY is a communication-possible distance.
 
Last edited:
...and this speculation alone is almost proof that the universe is full of sentient life but traveling around is kind of tough.

Even using Speckle-Drive which runs slightly over the speed of light (thus technically FTL), you're 4 years out from Proxima Centauri and all they have there is a convenience store and souvenir shop.
 
Bussard ramjet - 10 years at most and free fuel most of the way. :)
 
Scientists say we could make our first inter-stellar journey in 1000 years based on current GDP growth of the planet and scientific progress. There is a name for this calculation but I dont' remember it. Anyway, it says that if we leave sooner, lets say, in 900 years, chances are that the spacecraft that leaves 100 years after that will catch up to the previous space craft and also be better equipped for interstellar travel. Now chances are... interstellar travel will take decades no matter what. The whole Faster than Light or FTL.. or even close to the speed of light is hard to pull off. it's possible in quantum mechanics because you know, it's a crazy world out there. But applying quantum physics to anything bigger than atoms is tricky as far I know.

Still, go team Terra. :)
 
Scientists say we could make our first inter-stellar journey in 1000 years based on current GDP growth of the planet and scientific progress. There is a name for this calculation but I dont' remember it. Anyway, it says that if we leave sooner, lets say, in 900 years, chances are that the spacecraft that leaves 100 years after that will catch up to the previous space craft and also be better equipped for interstellar travel. Now chances are... interstellar travel will take decades no matter what. The whole Faster than Light or FTL.. or even close to the speed of light is hard to pull off. it's possible in quantum mechanics because you know, it's a crazy world out there. But applying quantum physics to anything bigger than atoms is tricky as far I know.

Still, go team Terra. :)
That's right. All of this is only a matter of time. Even then, the nearest carbon based sentients could be a million light years away, not far by universe standards but discouraging as a time investment. More likely we'll settle some closer planets and infest the milky way with our monkey like humans.
 
The alcubierre drive requires a form of energy that likely doesn't exist beyond quantum-scale levels (among many other problems). Much in the same way that nature doesn't allow us to produce an infinite amount of energy to accelerate beyond the speed of light, nature likely doesn't allow us to produce negative energy at the levels required. Besides, if we ever figure out how to produce negative energy there are much crazier things it would allow us to do besides FTL travel, like backwards time travel, causality violations etc.

Like it or not, we appear to live in a universe that prohibits FTL (probably to protect causality). Any interstellar travel that we do will likely be done in large, one-way relativistic generation ships, sadly.
 
There is a name for this calculation but I dont' remember it. Anyway, it says that if we leave sooner, lets say, in 900 years, chances are that the spacecraft that leaves 100 years after that will catch up to the previous space craft and also be better equipped for interstellar travel.

It's called the incessant obsolescence postulate
 
The alcubierre drive requires a form of energy that likely doesn't exist beyond quantum-scale levels (among many other problems). Much in the same way that nature doesn't allow us to produce an infinite amount of energy to accelerate beyond the speed of light, nature likely doesn't allow us to produce negative energy at the levels required. Besides, if we ever figure out how to produce negative energy there are much crazier things it would allow us to do besides FTL travel, like backwards time travel, causality violations etc.

Like it or not, we appear to live in a universe that prohibits FTL (probably to protect causality). Any interstellar travel that we do will likely be done in large, one-way relativistic generation ships, sadly.
Without a working theory of quantum gravity, any suggestion of a relation between time travel and FTL is even more speculative than FTL itself. I can see where a warp bubble need not invoke time travel or causality issues, since the bubble is still moving through our normal space-time even if the ship inside isn't.
 
Without a working theory of quantum gravity, any suggestion of a relation between time travel and FTL is even more speculative than FTL itself. I can see where a warp bubble need not invoke time travel or causality issues, since the bubble is still moving through our normal space-time even if the ship inside isn't.

As I understand it, the only situation in which the Alcubierre drive avoids the problem of FTL and causality is if the information (or person) inside the bubble is prohibited from ever leaving the bubble (or interacting causally in any way) at his destination. But such a warpdrive would be useless, and is not the kind of warpdrive implied in these discussions.

If the information or person is allowed to exit the bubble (and interact causally with his destination), then causal violations can be shown to occur in at least some reference frames (not all). In fact, the method of travel is irrelevant, any time information or a person travels from Point A to Point B FTL, there can be causal violations in at least some reference frames.

The Alcubierre metric doesn't provide any answers to these issues of causality or backwards time travel that pop up with FTL travel in SR and GR. It only provides a theoretical mathematical solution to Einstein's field equations that doesn't have the problem of an infinite energy condition; rather, it requires a negative energy condition.

If FTL travel is possible in any way including via a warp drive, we must either (1) reject causality (unlikely, and it would probably render science inconsistent and unworkable) or (2) reject relativity (unlikely, given the overwhelming body of empirical data supporting it). My understanding is that most physicists consider the most likely possibility that quantum effects prevent us from achieving the negative energy densities necessary.

Here are some readings that explain better than I can.

Relativity and FTL Travel: Part IV

Q: Is the Alcubierre warp drive really possible? How close are we to actually building one and going faster than light? | Ask a Mathematician / Ask a Physicist

Faster-than-Lightspeed Time Travel

http://exvacuo.free.fr/div/Sciences...tt - Warp drive and causality - prd950914.pdf
 
If we could figure a way to boost continually at 1 G, both speeding up and slowing down,
We could reach most things within 50 light years in under 10 years ship time.
It would take about 440 days at 1 G to get near light speed, and about the same time to slow
down. The time spent near light speed would be so retarded that time on the ship would almost stop.
Earth would still age thousands of years.
The odds are likely, earthlings would be there to meet you at the other end.
 
Actually we already have a theoretical basis for an FTL workaround... the Alcubierre
drive. Not feasible as of yet, but the fact that there is a working hypothesis is encouraging that one day the problem will be solved.

It would take an infinite amount of energy to achieve a speed faster than the speed of light.
 
It would take an infinite amount of energy to achieve a speed faster than the speed of light.


Google "Alcubierre drive". This is an entirely different matter than attempting to exceed c in the conventional sense... which is the point.
 
Google "Alcubierre drive". This is an entirely different matter than attempting to exceed c in the conventional sense... which is the point.

Yea I googled it after I posted.

Interesting concept and supposedly consist with Einsteins Field Equations and General Relativity theory. Definitely outside the box thinking but it's existence would depend on our ability to manipulate space time both fore and aft of the ship in real time and the presence of exotic matter or " negative energy ".

"Exotic matter " is still speculative although I just posted a thread on the possibility of " strangents " occurring in high energy particle collisions in the section of the forum.
 
I'm pinning my hopes on neutrino's. They have no charge positive of negative, but they are theorized to have a small (and I mean very very small) amount of mass. We currently cannot accurately detect them, but I suspect that in the future we will be able to harness their energy to both travel faster than light, and to power our homes. Just sayin you heard it here first.. ;)


Tim-
 
I'm pinning my hopes on neutrino's. They
have no charge positive of negative, but they are theorized to have a small (and I mean very very small) amount of mass. We currently cannot accurately detect them, but I suspect that in the future we will be able to harness their energy to both travel faster than light, and to power our homes. Just sayin you heard it here first.. ;)


Tim-


Nuetrino's ? The smallest and hardest to detect of all particles ? Nah.

How would capturing and harnessing Nuetrino's provide power or "thrust" ?

Personally I think from the ground to leaving a planets orbit we are going to be stuck with chemical propellants.

Once in space we'll use the manipulation of highly ionized particles to produce thrust with primary power coming from a fusion reactor.

This is in the future of course.

We are currently experimenting with plasma engines that eject charged particles at very high speeds after passing them through highly charged electro static fields.

On earth this doesn't amount to much if any practicle amount of thrust but in the vacuum of space a massive space ship can be propelled at great speeds for extremely long distances.

Now for warp engines it's all science fiction right now as we have yet to even test a device that allows us to bend space time, but perhaps the typical space propulsion system in the very distant future wi be a mix of all three.

Chemical propellants to break us out of the hold of planetary atmospheres, plasma engines which NASA is currently testing and then a Warp Engine to cover light years in seconds or minutes.
 
Nuetrino's ? The smallest and hardest to detect of all particles ? Nah.

How would capturing and harnessing Nuetrino's provide power or "thrust" ?

Personally I think from the ground to leaving a planets orbit we are going to be stuck with chemical propellants.

Once in space we'll use the manipulation of highly ionized particles to produce thrust with primary power coming from a fusion reactor.

This is in the future of course.

We are currently experimenting with plasma engines that eject charged particles at very high speeds after passing them through highly charged electro static fields.

On earth this doesn't amount to much if any practicle amount of thrust but in the vacuum of space a massive space ship can be propelled at great speeds for extremely long distances.

Now for warp engines it's all science fiction right now as we have yet to even test a device that allows us to bend space time, but perhaps the typical space propulsion system in the very distant future wi be a mix of all three.

Chemical propellants to break us out of the hold of planetary atmospheres, plasma engines which NASA is currently testing and then a Warp Engine to cover light years in seconds or minutes.


Oh I'm well aware of the current theories, I'm just adding my own, "hypothesis". I think there's something to those little guys - we really have no clue about them, Neutrinos that is. There are literally trillions and trillions hitting you right now. Currently there is no known matter that interacts with it. I'm betting there really is, and we simply haven't found it.

Tim-
 
I'm a massive proponent of nuclear pulse propulsion. It is the most effective way for the mass exploitation of the inner solar system and explorative travel. Unfortunately I don't think we will actually do it until we've found another route into space and can avoid the political, environmental, and technical hurdles of launching from Earth.
 
Oh I'm well aware of the current theories, I'm
just adding my own, "hypothesis". I think there's something to those little guys - we really have no clue about them, Neutrinos that is. There are literally trillions and trillions hitting you right now. Currently there is no known matter that interacts with it. I'm betting there really is, and we simply haven't found it.

Tim-

I'm too rooted to practical evaluations and solutions for future travel scenarios that aren't specific down to some description of operation.

But anythings possible. What's most likely in the future is usually related to whats being researched and tested today as that technology improves.
 
Actually we already have a theoretical basis for an FTL workaround... the Alcubierre drive. Not feasible as of yet, but the fact that there is a working hypothesis is encouraging that one day the problem will be solved.

It's less encouraging if you actually explore the hypothesis. Tis sort of propulsion would depend on a type of matter that we hav no evidence suggesting that it exists or can exist: matter with a negative mass. Really, it's just a result of the fact that many equations in physics still work if you plug negative numbers into them, but that doesn't mean negative mass is really a meaningful concept.

Additionally, the theoretical power requirements would be .... Well, literally astronomical.
 
voyager I, as of the end of 2012 has travelled 17.9 billion Km in ~ 35 years. Proxima is ~ 37,843 billion Km away. at that rate it would take ~74K years to get there. we gotta get faster ;)
 
It's less encouraging if you actually explore the hypothesis. Tis sort of propulsion would depend on a type of matter that we hav no evidence suggesting that it exists or can exist: matter with a negative mass. Really, it's just a result of the fact that many equations in physics still work if you plug negative numbers into them, but that doesn't mean negative mass is really a meaningful concept.

Additionally, the theoretical power requirements would be .... Well, literally astronomical.


As I said, it isn't feasible at this time.

The thing is, most of my life there wasn't even a hypothetical real-science concept of how to bypass C... but now there is one. I find that encouraging. Not saying we'll have it licked in twenty years, I seriously doubt that, but it does demonstrate mathematically that some kind of c-limit workaround may be feasible one day.

One thing is certain; we'll never find a way unless we keep trying, keep looking to the stars.
 
Back
Top Bottom