I was thinking about how to explore outer space efficiently, which seems to be one of the issues of space technology. Its just one of those random thoughts of mine but I devised an answer to "efficient energy". Why don't we build a craft and explore space the same way we explored the oceans years ago- Sailing. First we propel into space the same way we have done for years then we simple free-float the rest of the journey due to inertia, and when its time to head back we simply fire the rockets again and change curse, sailing back to earth's orbit. This way we can explore huge parts of the universe endlessly, and with little or no energy. Does this make sense or is this just another early morning cognition symptom? But I am sure this is the only way space exploration is possible, it seems to me the possibilities are endless. Therefore, what are the limitations of space exploration?

the problem is speed. if you used that technique, I don't think you could reach the nearest star in a lifetime. the the milky way galaxy (where we are) is 100,000 light years in diameter, which means that even if you were going 99% of the speed of light, it would still take you more than 100,000 years to cross it. moreover, our galaxy is only a part of a bigger galaxy cluster, which is an insignificant spec compared to the whole universe. sadly, if the universe keeps expanding like it is now, we humans will never get a chance to explore 0.000000000000000000000000001% of it.

Maybe there is some kind of fast hyper-current we can catch to expedite the voyage, you know, some sort of short cut? Anyway I have no idea what I am talking about

it is possible that there is a wormhole out there we could use, but so far they are just science fiction.

Do we need to over-reach for the nearest star? The are places in our own solar system we could explore.

Im sure most in the know would agree that our best bet at the moment is interferometers. I think i'll be cashing my old age pension way before anything more direct transpires in regards interstellar exploration.

Chatha you seem to be confusing an analogy with reality. Although many liken space travel to the early ocean travelers, there is nothing farther from the truth. Life most likely CAME from the ocean. It is not nearly so uninviting as it may seem. The distances were also not nearly as far as people really though. Consider that throwing a bottle into the ocean in Sydney could eventually end up in New York Harbor, all without a few months, and that is just under drifting with currents.

Space is very different. Let me first quote Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy:

"Space is big. Really big. You just won't believe how vastly hugely mindbogglingly big it is. I mean you may think it’s a long way down the road to the chemist, but that’s just peanuts to space."

This is very true. Consider that light itself, the fastest possible mode of travel through space takes 8 full minutes to reach the earth from just the sun. It takes over 5 hours for light just to reach Pluto. There are no currents, there are no waves, no wind. In space you have just one of two things. Within a solar system you have massive radiation, this include the energetic solar wind as well as various other forms of radiation. Outside of a solar system, which is really most of space, is absolutely nothing. No solar wind, no radiation, no nothing. Perhaps 1 atom of hydrogen in every cubic meter. This is not a lot.

Now lets consider the distances. Our NEAREST star is 4.3 light years from here. That means that traveling at the speed of light, it would take 4.3 years to get there. Consider now that the FASTEST human vehicle ever conceived to actually be built to transport real humans was Project Orion, which was only meant to achieve 0.1c, or 10% of the speed of light. This is 43 years of travel, just to reach another star.

If your rocket fires only once, then "coasts" the remainder of the way, it will most likely be going no faster than about 30,000 miles per hour. At this speed, it would take approximately 96,121 years to reach the NEAREST star. Then if you wanted to go to the FARTHEST star in the galaxy this could take on the order of half a billion years. Space is far scarier and less inviting than most would ever want to believe.

-AntonK

To be fair, there have been proposals to harness the solar wind by means of a "sail" which are large 6 to 8 mile wide mylar mirrors which would utilize the kinetic energy of light and all the misc ionized atomic junk our sun spits out.

There have also been proposals to use large magnetic fields to do the same.

Actually, solar sails do not depend on the "solar wind", that is the radiation made up of energetic protons. Rather, the momentum from the radiation pressure is about 100 times greater. This is the problem with the magnetic field proposals. The solar wind just does not carry as much momentum, and therefure the "sail" of the magnetic field must be orders of magnitude bigger.

Even with the solar sail itself, the problem still is production. No one has any idea how to actually build something with the needed strength and thinness without it being too heavy.

-AntonK

Solar sailing is slow. Wormholes would be the best bet with the most evidence, though there are probobly other opportunities out there. It is actually probobly really simple.

dexter,

Unfortunately, I could just as easily say that magic is our best best. We'll just use magic and transport there. Wormholes may or may not exists, and may or may not be possible. Eitherway they are far beyond our ability to engineer. Solar sails are within our engineering capability (though not easy). There is actually very little evidence that there are many good fast ways to travel around the universe. Everything we see out there -- WAY out there, either started out there or took eons to travel. We've seen no evidence of a single object every moving faster than light, or of one traversing any sort of naturally occuring worm hole.

-AntonK

I was thinking about how to explore outer space efficiently, which seems to be one of the issues of space technology. Its just one of those random thoughts of mine but I devised an answer to "efficient energy". Why don't we build a craft and explore space the same way we explored the oceans years ago- Sailing. First we propel into space the same way we have done for years then we simple free-float the rest of the journey due to inertia, and when its time to head back we simply fire the rockets again and change curse, sailing back to earth's orbit. This way we can explore huge parts of the universe endlessly, and with little or no energy. Does this make sense or is this just another early morning cognition symptom? But I am sure this is the only way space exploration is possible, it seems to me the possibilities are endless. Therefore, what are the limitations of space exploration?
Definitely just another early morning cognition symptom!

Do we need to over-reach for the nearest star? The are places in our own solar system we could explore.Our dream is to find another civilization so that we don't feel alone in the universe. If we just find intelligent life it will give us hope that on a planet of one of the other billions of stars there is intelligent life that is building a civilization. Even if we just find an ecosystem with sufficiently hospitable conditions that something more complex that a one-celled plant has managed to hang on, it will give us hope that it or some other planet will in a few billion more years evolve intelligent life.

Exploring our own solar system obviously must be done and there are surely a lot of surprises out there. But it is extremely improbable that one of them will be life, especially something more advanced than a one-celled prokaryote. We can't see any way that the kind of biochemistry that we can understand and recognize as alive could survive, much less develop, anywhere in our solar system except Earth. Even sci fi writers gave up that dream a couple of decades ago and they're happy to hang onto the most remote scientific possiblity to make a good story. Many of these writers are accomplished scientists and even they would rather hang onto the remote prospect of wormholes or FTL technology to take us to the stars than of extraterrestrial biology within our own system.

We need to go to the stars because we need to find other "people."

dexter,

Unfortunately, I could just as easily say that magic is our best best. We'll just use magic and transport there. Wormholes may or may not exists, and may or may not be possible. Eitherway they are far beyond our ability to engineer. Solar sails are without our engineering capability (though not easy). There is actually very little evidence that there are many good fast ways to travel around the universe. Everything we see out there -- WAY out there, either started out there or took eons to travel. We've seen no evidence of a single object every moving faster than light, or of one traversing any sort of naturally occuring worm hole.

-AntonK


Noted. I just dont see the practical implications of solar sailing. Unless it is in some desperate hope to send something that we know is going to take eons to reach anything, it is inpractical.

I just read an article concerning a six dimentional universe in which using changing electromagnetic fields one could theoretically place oneself into a mix of the 2 higher dimentions (5th and 6th) in which rules of our dimention dont necessarily imply. i.e the speed of light. though purely theoretical, the idea was actually initially conceived as a theory for predicting mass.

I also just read an article dealing with a new breakthrough in teleporting , but I'm just going to post a topic on it. you should go read it.

If only there was an analog of the jet stream in outer space, then we'd have a good ride. But it is not so.

The key to the long boring space travels may be cryogenic preservation, but that will probably take equally as long to perfect. Rocket technology is going fine with ion engines, magnetosphere sails, nuclear power, and conventional rockets.