Elon musk's new star ships what will be there limits our will there limits expand as far a capacity for distance traveled
First off "theory" in science doesn't mean what it has been adopted colloquially as in the public lexicon that in scientific terms is called a hypothesis for a hypothesis to become a theory it needs a mathematically rigorous framework which in addition to explaining past results makes predictions that can be tested and verified in experiments.It's still only SciFi theory anyway.
I'm calling the robot rights community sent into space"I think humanity needs more time than half a century to solve this problem. And what suggestions are there to solve this problem with fuel?"
Send robots. No food, air, and all the rest. And don't come back!
I think you are right concerning deep space travel, but unduly pessimistic concerning the exploration of Mars. I suggest that human exploration of Mars may well occur within 10-20 years if Elon Musk gets his way and he seems quite intent. Time will tell if gets a s far as a permanent settlement, flags and foot prints or if it fails to materialise at all. Why do you think that travel to Mars won't be possible?Will there be deep space travel in the next half century My emphasis.
I interpreted "travel" as being travel by humans. If so, then deep space in the next 50 years is definitely not possible. I doubt humans will get to Mars even in that time.
P.S. I am interpreting "deep space" as way beyond the Solar System.
Are you referring to human interstellar travel or human interplanetary travel?No, it is not possible in the next half century. Perhaps this may not be possible in the next century also. Maybe, it sounds strange, but it is true.
It is true that relativistic mass increases are not appreciable until a significant fraction of the speed of light is reached, however that is not the main issue. I think you summed it up quite well by saying "assuming 100% conversion of matter - antimatter" and on a scale approaching that of the International Space Station. We can currently only produce antimatter a few atoms at a time and with a very short storage period. The capability of producing hundreds of tons of anti matter is unlikely to be available any time soon and possibly never.It's important to recognize that the extra energy needed due to relativity is not that much until you reach a speed close to c.
For instance, only 10% more energy than normal (classic KE) is needed when traveling at 35% of c. This speed has the ship arriving at Proxima in about 11.5 years (ignoring acceleration and deceleration).
That's still a great deal of energy needed to get to 0.35c. Perhaps 25% of the mass of a spaceship 3x that of the ISS (excluding fuel) would be required just for acceleration and assuming 100% conversion of matter-antimatter.
Using futuristic advanced fusion power (i.e. 7% mass conversion), and allowing for acceleration and deceleration, perhaps something like 50 times more mass than that of the ship (w/o fuel) is required.
[For the Apollo 11 payload, the total mass to payload (not fuel) was about 32:1, assuming my math is correct.]
Agreed, which is why I used "futuristic". I'm sure I would not want to spend a dozen or more years traveling next to a huge pile of anti-matter.It is true that relativistic mass increases are not appreciable until a significant fraction of the speed of light is reached, however that is not the main issue. I think you summed it up quite well by saying "assuming 100% conversion of matter - antimatter" and on a scale approaching that of the International Space Station. We can currently only produce antimatter a few atoms at a time and with a very short storage period. The capability of producing hundreds of tons of anti matter is unlikely to be available any time soon and possibly never.
I figure about the same for Mars to begin.Slarty
"I suggest that human exploration of Mars may well occur within 10-20 years" My emphasis.
What, exactly, does that mean? Skulking in a small colony, totally dependent on Earth, or walking around in sandstorms?
Unless we have some tech leap or new understanding of how to travel and bypass space/time then the only way to travel is as DNA.What I mean here is, Human Interstellar Travel. Also we need a lot of time for interplanetary travel also.
Even at 0.7% conversion of hydrogen mass to energy is far more powerful than any chemical process. I think fusion is something over 500x more efficient at conversion vs. fission, IIRC.Just a couple of points. That correction looks pretty meaningful. Does it come close to invalidating the whole project?
Yeah, all critical issues in finding the most effective way to travel incredible distances. But chemical burning fuel that must be carried along in huge quantities seems less effective. I haven't dug into this much as we have such a long way to go to get me excited.Especially in the light of this, did your accel/decel allowance cover just the outgoing trip, or did it include a return. All this seems fairly important in view of fuel requirement/mass.
Also, in your calculations, what allowance did you make for mass of radiation shielding.