Why haven't we yet tried accelerating a space station with people inside to a near light speed?Why is there a...
Writing style before Elements of Style
Beginner looking to learn/master musical theory and instrumental ability. Where should I begin?
How can I make an argument that my time is valuable?
Why do Russians almost not use verbs of possession akin to "have"?
Is it legal to meet with potential future employers in the UK, whilst visiting from the USA
What Armor Optimization applies to a Mithral full plate?
I know that there is a preselected candidate for a position to be filled at my department. What should I do?
How to cut a climbing rope?
What could a self-sustaining lunar colony slowly lose that would ultimately prove fatal?
How can I tell if I'm being too picky as a referee?
How was Daenerys able to legitimise this character?
How to politely tell someone they did not hit "reply to all" in an email?
Can a person survive on blood in place of water?
Why haven't we yet tried accelerating a space station with people inside to a near light speed?
Why isn't 'chemically-strengthened glass' made with potassium carbonate to begin with?
How to deal with a colleague who is being aggressive?
Are there any German nonsense poems (Jabberwocky)?
Is there a simple example that empirical evidence is misleading?
Is there a context where the expression `a.b::c` makes sense?
Why does the hash of infinity have the digits of π?
Why was this character made Grand Maester?
Grade-school elementary algebra presented in an abstract-algebra style?
Python program to take in two strings and print the larger string
Is it truly impossible to tell what a CPU is doing?
Why haven't we yet tried accelerating a space station with people inside to a near light speed?
Why is there a controversy on whether mass increases with speed?Is rocket propellant meaningfully a form of “space junk”What is the relativistic calculation of travel time to Proxima Centauri?Do photons see shorter distances due to space contraction?Relativistic space travel?Does physics recognize the particle of light separately from the wave of light?Wormholes, time travel, and time dilationFalling into the black hole: a picture from the infinite distanceAre there any well-known large body objects moving at a significant fraction of the speed of light relative to earth?Observer inside event horizon of an extremely large black holeEffect of Acceleration on (Special) Relativity of Simultaneity
$begingroup$
Is that something we could do if we use ion or nuclear thrusters?
Wouldn't people in the station reach 0.99993 speed of light in just 5 years accelerating at 1g and effectively travel into the future by 83.7 years?
That would be a great experiment and a very effective way to show relativity theory in action. I mean, the people inside the station would have effectively traveled into the future, how cool is that? Why haven't it been done yet?
general-relativity special-relativity experimental-physics relativity space
asked 13 hours ago
Un1Un1
17316
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Is that something we could do if we use ion or nuclear thrusters?
Wouldn't people in the station reach 0.99993 speed of light in just 5 years accelerating at 1g and effectively travel into the future by 83.7 years?
That would be a great experiment and a very effective way to show relativity theory in action. I mean, the people inside the station would have effectively traveled into the future, how cool is that? Why haven't it been done yet?
general-relativity special-relativity experimental-physics relativity space
asked 13 hours ago
Un1Un1
17316
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
Comments are not for extended discussion; this conversation has been moved to chat.
$endgroup$
– Chris♦
6 hours ago
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Is that something we could do if we use ion or nuclear thrusters?
Wouldn't people in the station reach 0.99993 speed of light in just 5 years accelerating at 1g and effectively travel into the future by 83.7 years?
That would be a great experiment and a very effective way to show relativity theory in action. I mean, the people inside the station would have effectively traveled into the future, how cool is that? Why haven't it been done yet?
general-relativity special-relativity experimental-physics relativity space
asked 13 hours ago
Un1Un1
17316
$endgroup$
Is that something we could do if we use ion or nuclear thrusters?
Wouldn't people in the station reach 0.99993 speed of light in just 5 years accelerating at 1g and effectively travel into the future by 83.7 years?
That would be a great experiment and a very effective way to show relativity theory in action. I mean, the people inside the station would have effectively traveled into the future, how cool is that? Why haven't it been done yet?
general-relativity special-relativity experimental-physics relativity space
general-relativity special-relativity experimental-physics relativity space
asked 13 hours ago
Un1Un1
17316
asked 13 hours ago
Un1Un1
17316
edited 8 hours ago
Un1
asked 13 hours ago
Un1Un1
17316
asked 13 hours ago
Un1Un1
17316
asked 13 hours ago
Un1Un1
17316
17316
$begingroup$
Comments are not for extended discussion; this conversation has been moved to chat.
$endgroup$
– Chris♦
6 hours ago
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Comments are not for extended discussion; this conversation has been moved to chat.
$endgroup$
– Chris♦
6 hours ago
$begingroup$
Comments are not for extended discussion; this conversation has been moved to chat.
$endgroup$
– Chris♦
6 hours ago
$begingroup$
Comments are not for extended discussion; this conversation has been moved to chat.
$endgroup$
– Chris♦
6 hours ago
add a comment |
3 Answers
3
active
oldest
votes
$begingroup$
It is not feasible because it would cost an enormous amount of energy
to accelerate the spacecraft.
To proove this let's calculate with some concrete numbers.
Very optimistically estimated, your spacecraft may have a mass of $m=1000text{ kg}$ (enough for a few persons and a small space-capsule around them, but neglecting the mass of the needed fuel).
And you said you want a speed of $v=0.99993cdot c$.
Now you can calculate the relativistic kinetic energy of it:
$$begin{align}
E_{text k} &= frac{mc^2}{sqrt{1-v^2/c^2}} - mc^2 \
&= left(frac{1}{sqrt{1-v^2/c^2}}-1right) mc^2 \
&= left(frac{1}{sqrt{1-0.99993^2}}-1right)cdot 1000 text{ kg}cdot (3cdot 10^8text{ m/s})^2 \
&= (84.5-1)cdot 1000 text{ kg}cdot (3cdot 10^8text{ m/s})^2 \
&= 7.5 cdot 10^{21}text{ J}
end{align}$$
Now this is an enormous amount of energy.
It is comparable to the yearly total world energy supply.
(According to Wikipedia:World energy consumption
the total primary energy supply of year 2013 was $5.67 cdot 10^{20}text{ J}$.)
answered 12 hours ago
Thomas FritschThomas Fritsch
2,11811119
$endgroup$
1
$begingroup$
Thanks for the answer! Yeah, it seems it would be indeed impossible with our current engines to perform such an experiment. Man, why physics always prevents us from doing fun things like that...
$endgroup$
– Un1
12 hours ago
1
$begingroup$
Also, the people in the experiment would be on a one-way trip, most likely. Unless the amount of fuel were tripled.
$endgroup$
– Todd Wilcox
3 hours ago
6
$begingroup$
@ToddWilcox: They probably don't want to slam into the planet, so quadrupled, right?
$endgroup$
– Mooing Duck
3 hours ago
$begingroup$
Disagree. Delta V is a much harder problem than energy. Newton's 3rd is the enemy here.
$endgroup$
– Aron
12 mins ago
add a comment |
$begingroup$
I'm no physicist, but, just to add to the list of insurmountable problems with this idea, I've always thought the hardest problem was the "air resistance" in space.
The density of interstellar space is about 1 atom per cubic centimeter. If your spaceship is 1 meter cubed, and travels at c for 1 second, you have travelled 300,000 kilometers, encountering 300 trillion atoms.
When you are moving at relativistic speeds, each proton you run into is delivering 0.003 joules of energy into you. For the above distance, that's 900 GJ. 100 seconds in, and you have experienced pushback equivalent to a nuclear bomb.
Things are a little bit better in the intergalactic medium, where the density is 1 atom per cubic meter, a million times less than in regular interstellar space. That means 900 MJ per second of travel. That's 1 ton of TNT every 5 seconds. Whew, much better!
I'm super amateur so I may be miscalculating here, please correct me if I am!
answered 38 mins ago
NachtNacht
1213
New contributor
Nacht is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
1g for 5 years wouldn't give you anything like enough acceleration to reach 0.99993% of c within that time. It is often overlooked that you can't accelerate the human body as though it were a subatomic particle,even if you had an energy source powerful enough to do so. As your question suggests,only accelerations of about 1g are tolerable for long periods,so the acceleration required to reach 0.99993% of c within 5 years would kill all the astronauts. To reach a mere 92% of c would require a mass increase of 150%,so for a 1,000 ton spaceship that is a staggering amount of energy. No known source could supply it. Forget about anti-matter; the problems of producing it in such quantity & storing it safely are insuperable.
answered 11 hours ago
Michael WalsbyMichael Walsby
681
$endgroup$
3
$begingroup$
Please see the equations in the Relativistic Rocket article I linked earlier. Accelerating at 1g for 5 years (ship time), so the crew feel an effective gravity of 1g, does result in the stated speed. Plug this into Google:tanh((9.81 m/s^2)*(5 years)/c); the result is 0.999934479.
$endgroup$
– PM 2Ring
8 hours ago
$begingroup$
To create a mass increase of many thousand percent with no corresponding input of energy contravenes the 1st Law of Thermodynamics. Neither mass nor energy can be created out of nothing.
$endgroup$
– Michael Walsby
5 hours ago
$begingroup$
Yes, it requires a vast amount of energy to perform that acceleration, as I mentioned 12 hours ago in this comment, and as Thomas calculated in his answer. BTW, modern treatments of relativity avoid the concept of relativistic mass because it's unnecessary and potentially misleading. See physics.stackexchange.com/questions/133376/…
$endgroup$
– PM 2Ring
5 hours ago
$begingroup$
You can't avoid the concept of relativistic mass increase,regardless of whether you are accelerating particles or spaceships.
$endgroup$
– Michael Walsby
5 hours ago
$begingroup$
What do you mean? Did you look at that page I linked?
$endgroup$
– PM 2Ring
5 hours ago
|
show 1 more comment
Your Answer
StackExchange.ready(function() {
var channelOptions = {
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "151"
};
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
createEditor();
});
}
else {
createEditor();
}
});
function createEditor() {
StackExchange.prepareEditor({
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: false,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: null,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader: {
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
},
noCode: true, onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
});
}
});
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fphysics.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f481634%2fwhy-havent-we-yet-tried-accelerating-a-space-station-with-people-inside-to-a-ne%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
3 Answers
3
active
oldest
votes
3 Answers
3
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
$begingroup$
It is not feasible because it would cost an enormous amount of energy
to accelerate the spacecraft.
To proove this let's calculate with some concrete numbers.
Very optimistically estimated, your spacecraft may have a mass of $m=1000text{ kg}$ (enough for a few persons and a small space-capsule around them, but neglecting the mass of the needed fuel).
And you said you want a speed of $v=0.99993cdot c$.
Now you can calculate the relativistic kinetic energy of it:
$$begin{align}
E_{text k} &= frac{mc^2}{sqrt{1-v^2/c^2}} - mc^2 \
&= left(frac{1}{sqrt{1-v^2/c^2}}-1right) mc^2 \
&= left(frac{1}{sqrt{1-0.99993^2}}-1right)cdot 1000 text{ kg}cdot (3cdot 10^8text{ m/s})^2 \
&= (84.5-1)cdot 1000 text{ kg}cdot (3cdot 10^8text{ m/s})^2 \
&= 7.5 cdot 10^{21}text{ J}
end{align}$$
Now this is an enormous amount of energy.
It is comparable to the yearly total world energy supply.
(According to Wikipedia:World energy consumption
the total primary energy supply of year 2013 was $5.67 cdot 10^{20}text{ J}$.)
answered 12 hours ago
Thomas FritschThomas Fritsch
2,11811119
$endgroup$
1
$begingroup$
Thanks for the answer! Yeah, it seems it would be indeed impossible with our current engines to perform such an experiment. Man, why physics always prevents us from doing fun things like that...
$endgroup$
– Un1
12 hours ago
1
$begingroup$
Also, the people in the experiment would be on a one-way trip, most likely. Unless the amount of fuel were tripled.
$endgroup$
– Todd Wilcox
3 hours ago
6
$begingroup$
@ToddWilcox: They probably don't want to slam into the planet, so quadrupled, right?
$endgroup$
– Mooing Duck
3 hours ago
$begingroup$
Disagree. Delta V is a much harder problem than energy. Newton's 3rd is the enemy here.
$endgroup$
– Aron
12 mins ago
add a comment |
$begingroup$
It is not feasible because it would cost an enormous amount of energy
to accelerate the spacecraft.
To proove this let's calculate with some concrete numbers.
Very optimistically estimated, your spacecraft may have a mass of $m=1000text{ kg}$ (enough for a few persons and a small space-capsule around them, but neglecting the mass of the needed fuel).
And you said you want a speed of $v=0.99993cdot c$.
Now you can calculate the relativistic kinetic energy of it:
$$begin{align}
E_{text k} &= frac{mc^2}{sqrt{1-v^2/c^2}} - mc^2 \
&= left(frac{1}{sqrt{1-v^2/c^2}}-1right) mc^2 \
&= left(frac{1}{sqrt{1-0.99993^2}}-1right)cdot 1000 text{ kg}cdot (3cdot 10^8text{ m/s})^2 \
&= (84.5-1)cdot 1000 text{ kg}cdot (3cdot 10^8text{ m/s})^2 \
&= 7.5 cdot 10^{21}text{ J}
end{align}$$
Now this is an enormous amount of energy.
It is comparable to the yearly total world energy supply.
(According to Wikipedia:World energy consumption
the total primary energy supply of year 2013 was $5.67 cdot 10^{20}text{ J}$.)
answered 12 hours ago
Thomas FritschThomas Fritsch
2,11811119
$endgroup$
1
$begingroup$
Thanks for the answer! Yeah, it seems it would be indeed impossible with our current engines to perform such an experiment. Man, why physics always prevents us from doing fun things like that...
$endgroup$
– Un1
12 hours ago
1
$begingroup$
Also, the people in the experiment would be on a one-way trip, most likely. Unless the amount of fuel were tripled.
$endgroup$
– Todd Wilcox
3 hours ago
6
$begingroup$
@ToddWilcox: They probably don't want to slam into the planet, so quadrupled, right?
$endgroup$
– Mooing Duck
3 hours ago
$begingroup$
Disagree. Delta V is a much harder problem than energy. Newton's 3rd is the enemy here.
$endgroup$
– Aron
12 mins ago
add a comment |
$begingroup$
It is not feasible because it would cost an enormous amount of energy
to accelerate the spacecraft.
To proove this let's calculate with some concrete numbers.
Very optimistically estimated, your spacecraft may have a mass of $m=1000text{ kg}$ (enough for a few persons and a small space-capsule around them, but neglecting the mass of the needed fuel).
And you said you want a speed of $v=0.99993cdot c$.
Now you can calculate the relativistic kinetic energy of it:
$$begin{align}
E_{text k} &= frac{mc^2}{sqrt{1-v^2/c^2}} - mc^2 \
&= left(frac{1}{sqrt{1-v^2/c^2}}-1right) mc^2 \
&= left(frac{1}{sqrt{1-0.99993^2}}-1right)cdot 1000 text{ kg}cdot (3cdot 10^8text{ m/s})^2 \
&= (84.5-1)cdot 1000 text{ kg}cdot (3cdot 10^8text{ m/s})^2 \
&= 7.5 cdot 10^{21}text{ J}
end{align}$$
Now this is an enormous amount of energy.
It is comparable to the yearly total world energy supply.
(According to Wikipedia:World energy consumption
the total primary energy supply of year 2013 was $5.67 cdot 10^{20}text{ J}$.)
answered 12 hours ago
Thomas FritschThomas Fritsch
2,11811119
$endgroup$
It is not feasible because it would cost an enormous amount of energy
to accelerate the spacecraft.
To proove this let's calculate with some concrete numbers.
Very optimistically estimated, your spacecraft may have a mass of $m=1000text{ kg}$ (enough for a few persons and a small space-capsule around them, but neglecting the mass of the needed fuel).
And you said you want a speed of $v=0.99993cdot c$.
Now you can calculate the relativistic kinetic energy of it:
$$begin{align}
E_{text k} &= frac{mc^2}{sqrt{1-v^2/c^2}} - mc^2 \
&= left(frac{1}{sqrt{1-v^2/c^2}}-1right) mc^2 \
&= left(frac{1}{sqrt{1-0.99993^2}}-1right)cdot 1000 text{ kg}cdot (3cdot 10^8text{ m/s})^2 \
&= (84.5-1)cdot 1000 text{ kg}cdot (3cdot 10^8text{ m/s})^2 \
&= 7.5 cdot 10^{21}text{ J}
end{align}$$
Now this is an enormous amount of energy.
It is comparable to the yearly total world energy supply.
(According to Wikipedia:World energy consumption
the total primary energy supply of year 2013 was $5.67 cdot 10^{20}text{ J}$.)
answered 12 hours ago
Thomas FritschThomas Fritsch
2,11811119
edited 6 hours ago
answered 12 hours ago
Thomas FritschThomas Fritsch
2,11811119
answered 12 hours ago
Thomas FritschThomas Fritsch
2,11811119
answered 12 hours ago
Thomas FritschThomas Fritsch
2,11811119
2,11811119
1
$begingroup$
Thanks for the answer! Yeah, it seems it would be indeed impossible with our current engines to perform such an experiment. Man, why physics always prevents us from doing fun things like that...
$endgroup$
– Un1
12 hours ago
1
$begingroup$
Also, the people in the experiment would be on a one-way trip, most likely. Unless the amount of fuel were tripled.
$endgroup$
– Todd Wilcox
3 hours ago
6
$begingroup$
@ToddWilcox: They probably don't want to slam into the planet, so quadrupled, right?
$endgroup$
– Mooing Duck
3 hours ago
$begingroup$
Disagree. Delta V is a much harder problem than energy. Newton's 3rd is the enemy here.
$endgroup$
– Aron
12 mins ago
add a comment |
1
$begingroup$
Thanks for the answer! Yeah, it seems it would be indeed impossible with our current engines to perform such an experiment. Man, why physics always prevents us from doing fun things like that...
$endgroup$
– Un1
12 hours ago
1
$begingroup$
Also, the people in the experiment would be on a one-way trip, most likely. Unless the amount of fuel were tripled.
$endgroup$
– Todd Wilcox
3 hours ago
6
$begingroup$
@ToddWilcox: They probably don't want to slam into the planet, so quadrupled, right?
$endgroup$
– Mooing Duck
3 hours ago
$begingroup$
Disagree. Delta V is a much harder problem than energy. Newton's 3rd is the enemy here.
$endgroup$
– Aron
12 mins ago
1
1
$begingroup$
Thanks for the answer! Yeah, it seems it would be indeed impossible with our current engines to perform such an experiment. Man, why physics always prevents us from doing fun things like that...
$endgroup$
– Un1
12 hours ago
$begingroup$
Thanks for the answer! Yeah, it seems it would be indeed impossible with our current engines to perform such an experiment. Man, why physics always prevents us from doing fun things like that...
$endgroup$
– Un1
12 hours ago
1
1
$begingroup$
Also, the people in the experiment would be on a one-way trip, most likely. Unless the amount of fuel were tripled.
$endgroup$
– Todd Wilcox
3 hours ago
$begingroup$
Also, the people in the experiment would be on a one-way trip, most likely. Unless the amount of fuel were tripled.
$endgroup$
– Todd Wilcox
3 hours ago
6
6
$begingroup$
@ToddWilcox: They probably don't want to slam into the planet, so quadrupled, right?
$endgroup$
– Mooing Duck
3 hours ago
$begingroup$
@ToddWilcox: They probably don't want to slam into the planet, so quadrupled, right?
$endgroup$
– Mooing Duck
3 hours ago
$begingroup$
Disagree. Delta V is a much harder problem than energy. Newton's 3rd is the enemy here.
$endgroup$
– Aron
12 mins ago
$begingroup$
Disagree. Delta V is a much harder problem than energy. Newton's 3rd is the enemy here.
$endgroup$
– Aron
12 mins ago
add a comment |
$begingroup$
I'm no physicist, but, just to add to the list of insurmountable problems with this idea, I've always thought the hardest problem was the "air resistance" in space.
The density of interstellar space is about 1 atom per cubic centimeter. If your spaceship is 1 meter cubed, and travels at c for 1 second, you have travelled 300,000 kilometers, encountering 300 trillion atoms.
When you are moving at relativistic speeds, each proton you run into is delivering 0.003 joules of energy into you. For the above distance, that's 900 GJ. 100 seconds in, and you have experienced pushback equivalent to a nuclear bomb.
Things are a little bit better in the intergalactic medium, where the density is 1 atom per cubic meter, a million times less than in regular interstellar space. That means 900 MJ per second of travel. That's 1 ton of TNT every 5 seconds. Whew, much better!
I'm super amateur so I may be miscalculating here, please correct me if I am!
answered 38 mins ago
NachtNacht
1213
New contributor
Nacht is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
I'm no physicist, but, just to add to the list of insurmountable problems with this idea, I've always thought the hardest problem was the "air resistance" in space.
The density of interstellar space is about 1 atom per cubic centimeter. If your spaceship is 1 meter cubed, and travels at c for 1 second, you have travelled 300,000 kilometers, encountering 300 trillion atoms.
When you are moving at relativistic speeds, each proton you run into is delivering 0.003 joules of energy into you. For the above distance, that's 900 GJ. 100 seconds in, and you have experienced pushback equivalent to a nuclear bomb.
Things are a little bit better in the intergalactic medium, where the density is 1 atom per cubic meter, a million times less than in regular interstellar space. That means 900 MJ per second of travel. That's 1 ton of TNT every 5 seconds. Whew, much better!
I'm super amateur so I may be miscalculating here, please correct me if I am!
answered 38 mins ago
NachtNacht
1213
New contributor
Nacht is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
I'm no physicist, but, just to add to the list of insurmountable problems with this idea, I've always thought the hardest problem was the "air resistance" in space.
The density of interstellar space is about 1 atom per cubic centimeter. If your spaceship is 1 meter cubed, and travels at c for 1 second, you have travelled 300,000 kilometers, encountering 300 trillion atoms.
When you are moving at relativistic speeds, each proton you run into is delivering 0.003 joules of energy into you. For the above distance, that's 900 GJ. 100 seconds in, and you have experienced pushback equivalent to a nuclear bomb.
Things are a little bit better in the intergalactic medium, where the density is 1 atom per cubic meter, a million times less than in regular interstellar space. That means 900 MJ per second of travel. That's 1 ton of TNT every 5 seconds. Whew, much better!
I'm super amateur so I may be miscalculating here, please correct me if I am!
answered 38 mins ago
NachtNacht
1213
New contributor
Nacht is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
$endgroup$
I'm no physicist, but, just to add to the list of insurmountable problems with this idea, I've always thought the hardest problem was the "air resistance" in space.
The density of interstellar space is about 1 atom per cubic centimeter. If your spaceship is 1 meter cubed, and travels at c for 1 second, you have travelled 300,000 kilometers, encountering 300 trillion atoms.
When you are moving at relativistic speeds, each proton you run into is delivering 0.003 joules of energy into you. For the above distance, that's 900 GJ. 100 seconds in, and you have experienced pushback equivalent to a nuclear bomb.
Things are a little bit better in the intergalactic medium, where the density is 1 atom per cubic meter, a million times less than in regular interstellar space. That means 900 MJ per second of travel. That's 1 ton of TNT every 5 seconds. Whew, much better!
I'm super amateur so I may be miscalculating here, please correct me if I am!
answered 38 mins ago
NachtNacht
1213
New contributor
Nacht is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
answered 38 mins ago
NachtNacht
1213
New contributor
Nacht is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
answered 38 mins ago
NachtNacht
1213
answered 38 mins ago
NachtNacht
1213
1213
New contributor
Nacht is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
New contributor
Nacht is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
add a comment |
add a comment |
$begingroup$
1g for 5 years wouldn't give you anything like enough acceleration to reach 0.99993% of c within that time. It is often overlooked that you can't accelerate the human body as though it were a subatomic particle,even if you had an energy source powerful enough to do so. As your question suggests,only accelerations of about 1g are tolerable for long periods,so the acceleration required to reach 0.99993% of c within 5 years would kill all the astronauts. To reach a mere 92% of c would require a mass increase of 150%,so for a 1,000 ton spaceship that is a staggering amount of energy. No known source could supply it. Forget about anti-matter; the problems of producing it in such quantity & storing it safely are insuperable.
answered 11 hours ago
Michael WalsbyMichael Walsby
681
$endgroup$
3
$begingroup$
Please see the equations in the Relativistic Rocket article I linked earlier. Accelerating at 1g for 5 years (ship time), so the crew feel an effective gravity of 1g, does result in the stated speed. Plug this into Google:tanh((9.81 m/s^2)*(5 years)/c); the result is 0.999934479.
$endgroup$
– PM 2Ring
8 hours ago
$begingroup$
To create a mass increase of many thousand percent with no corresponding input of energy contravenes the 1st Law of Thermodynamics. Neither mass nor energy can be created out of nothing.
$endgroup$
– Michael Walsby
5 hours ago
$begingroup$
Yes, it requires a vast amount of energy to perform that acceleration, as I mentioned 12 hours ago in this comment, and as Thomas calculated in his answer. BTW, modern treatments of relativity avoid the concept of relativistic mass because it's unnecessary and potentially misleading. See physics.stackexchange.com/questions/133376/…
$endgroup$
– PM 2Ring
5 hours ago
$begingroup$
You can't avoid the concept of relativistic mass increase,regardless of whether you are accelerating particles or spaceships.
$endgroup$
– Michael Walsby
5 hours ago
$begingroup$
What do you mean? Did you look at that page I linked?
$endgroup$
– PM 2Ring
5 hours ago
|
show 1 more comment
$begingroup$
1g for 5 years wouldn't give you anything like enough acceleration to reach 0.99993% of c within that time. It is often overlooked that you can't accelerate the human body as though it were a subatomic particle,even if you had an energy source powerful enough to do so. As your question suggests,only accelerations of about 1g are tolerable for long periods,so the acceleration required to reach 0.99993% of c within 5 years would kill all the astronauts. To reach a mere 92% of c would require a mass increase of 150%,so for a 1,000 ton spaceship that is a staggering amount of energy. No known source could supply it. Forget about anti-matter; the problems of producing it in such quantity & storing it safely are insuperable.
answered 11 hours ago
Michael WalsbyMichael Walsby
681
$endgroup$
3
$begingroup$
Please see the equations in the Relativistic Rocket article I linked earlier. Accelerating at 1g for 5 years (ship time), so the crew feel an effective gravity of 1g, does result in the stated speed. Plug this into Google:tanh((9.81 m/s^2)*(5 years)/c); the result is 0.999934479.
$endgroup$
– PM 2Ring
8 hours ago
$begingroup$
To create a mass increase of many thousand percent with no corresponding input of energy contravenes the 1st Law of Thermodynamics. Neither mass nor energy can be created out of nothing.
$endgroup$
– Michael Walsby
5 hours ago
$begingroup$
Yes, it requires a vast amount of energy to perform that acceleration, as I mentioned 12 hours ago in this comment, and as Thomas calculated in his answer. BTW, modern treatments of relativity avoid the concept of relativistic mass because it's unnecessary and potentially misleading. See physics.stackexchange.com/questions/133376/…
$endgroup$
– PM 2Ring
5 hours ago
$begingroup$
You can't avoid the concept of relativistic mass increase,regardless of whether you are accelerating particles or spaceships.
$endgroup$
– Michael Walsby
5 hours ago
$begingroup$
What do you mean? Did you look at that page I linked?
$endgroup$
– PM 2Ring
5 hours ago
|
show 1 more comment
$begingroup$
1g for 5 years wouldn't give you anything like enough acceleration to reach 0.99993% of c within that time. It is often overlooked that you can't accelerate the human body as though it were a subatomic particle,even if you had an energy source powerful enough to do so. As your question suggests,only accelerations of about 1g are tolerable for long periods,so the acceleration required to reach 0.99993% of c within 5 years would kill all the astronauts. To reach a mere 92% of c would require a mass increase of 150%,so for a 1,000 ton spaceship that is a staggering amount of energy. No known source could supply it. Forget about anti-matter; the problems of producing it in such quantity & storing it safely are insuperable.
answered 11 hours ago
Michael WalsbyMichael Walsby
681
$endgroup$
1g for 5 years wouldn't give you anything like enough acceleration to reach 0.99993% of c within that time. It is often overlooked that you can't accelerate the human body as though it were a subatomic particle,even if you had an energy source powerful enough to do so. As your question suggests,only accelerations of about 1g are tolerable for long periods,so the acceleration required to reach 0.99993% of c within 5 years would kill all the astronauts. To reach a mere 92% of c would require a mass increase of 150%,so for a 1,000 ton spaceship that is a staggering amount of energy. No known source could supply it. Forget about anti-matter; the problems of producing it in such quantity & storing it safely are insuperable.
answered 11 hours ago
Michael WalsbyMichael Walsby
681
answered 11 hours ago
Michael WalsbyMichael Walsby
681
answered 11 hours ago
Michael WalsbyMichael Walsby
681
answered 11 hours ago
Michael WalsbyMichael Walsby
681
681
3
$begingroup$
Please see the equations in the Relativistic Rocket article I linked earlier. Accelerating at 1g for 5 years (ship time), so the crew feel an effective gravity of 1g, does result in the stated speed. Plug this into Google:tanh((9.81 m/s^2)*(5 years)/c); the result is 0.999934479.
$endgroup$
– PM 2Ring
8 hours ago
$begingroup$
To create a mass increase of many thousand percent with no corresponding input of energy contravenes the 1st Law of Thermodynamics. Neither mass nor energy can be created out of nothing.
$endgroup$
– Michael Walsby
5 hours ago
$begingroup$
Yes, it requires a vast amount of energy to perform that acceleration, as I mentioned 12 hours ago in this comment, and as Thomas calculated in his answer. BTW, modern treatments of relativity avoid the concept of relativistic mass because it's unnecessary and potentially misleading. See physics.stackexchange.com/questions/133376/…
$endgroup$
– PM 2Ring
5 hours ago
$begingroup$
You can't avoid the concept of relativistic mass increase,regardless of whether you are accelerating particles or spaceships.
$endgroup$
– Michael Walsby
5 hours ago
$begingroup$
What do you mean? Did you look at that page I linked?
$endgroup$
– PM 2Ring
5 hours ago
|
show 1 more comment
3
$begingroup$
Please see the equations in the Relativistic Rocket article I linked earlier. Accelerating at 1g for 5 years (ship time), so the crew feel an effective gravity of 1g, does result in the stated speed. Plug this into Google:tanh((9.81 m/s^2)*(5 years)/c); the result is 0.999934479.
$endgroup$
– PM 2Ring
8 hours ago
$begingroup$
To create a mass increase of many thousand percent with no corresponding input of energy contravenes the 1st Law of Thermodynamics. Neither mass nor energy can be created out of nothing.
$endgroup$
– Michael Walsby
5 hours ago
$begingroup$
Yes, it requires a vast amount of energy to perform that acceleration, as I mentioned 12 hours ago in this comment, and as Thomas calculated in his answer. BTW, modern treatments of relativity avoid the concept of relativistic mass because it's unnecessary and potentially misleading. See physics.stackexchange.com/questions/133376/…
$endgroup$
– PM 2Ring
5 hours ago
$begingroup$
You can't avoid the concept of relativistic mass increase,regardless of whether you are accelerating particles or spaceships.
$endgroup$
– Michael Walsby
5 hours ago
$begingroup$
What do you mean? Did you look at that page I linked?
$endgroup$
– PM 2Ring
5 hours ago
3
3
$begingroup$
Please see the equations in the Relativistic Rocket article I linked earlier. Accelerating at 1g for 5 years (ship time), so the crew feel an effective gravity of 1g, does result in the stated speed. Plug this into Google:
tanh((9.81 m/s^2)*(5 years)/c); the result is 0.999934479.$endgroup$
– PM 2Ring
8 hours ago
$begingroup$
Please see the equations in the Relativistic Rocket article I linked earlier. Accelerating at 1g for 5 years (ship time), so the crew feel an effective gravity of 1g, does result in the stated speed. Plug this into Google:
tanh((9.81 m/s^2)*(5 years)/c); the result is 0.999934479.$endgroup$
– PM 2Ring
8 hours ago
$begingroup$
To create a mass increase of many thousand percent with no corresponding input of energy contravenes the 1st Law of Thermodynamics. Neither mass nor energy can be created out of nothing.
$endgroup$
– Michael Walsby
5 hours ago
$begingroup$
To create a mass increase of many thousand percent with no corresponding input of energy contravenes the 1st Law of Thermodynamics. Neither mass nor energy can be created out of nothing.
$endgroup$
– Michael Walsby
5 hours ago
$begingroup$
Yes, it requires a vast amount of energy to perform that acceleration, as I mentioned 12 hours ago in this comment, and as Thomas calculated in his answer. BTW, modern treatments of relativity avoid the concept of relativistic mass because it's unnecessary and potentially misleading. See physics.stackexchange.com/questions/133376/…
$endgroup$
– PM 2Ring
5 hours ago
$begingroup$
Yes, it requires a vast amount of energy to perform that acceleration, as I mentioned 12 hours ago in this comment, and as Thomas calculated in his answer. BTW, modern treatments of relativity avoid the concept of relativistic mass because it's unnecessary and potentially misleading. See physics.stackexchange.com/questions/133376/…
$endgroup$
– PM 2Ring
5 hours ago
$begingroup$
You can't avoid the concept of relativistic mass increase,regardless of whether you are accelerating particles or spaceships.
$endgroup$
– Michael Walsby
5 hours ago
$begingroup$
You can't avoid the concept of relativistic mass increase,regardless of whether you are accelerating particles or spaceships.
$endgroup$
– Michael Walsby
5 hours ago
$begingroup$
What do you mean? Did you look at that page I linked?
$endgroup$
– PM 2Ring
5 hours ago
$begingroup$
What do you mean? Did you look at that page I linked?
$endgroup$
– PM 2Ring
5 hours ago
|
show 1 more comment
Thanks for contributing an answer to Physics Stack Exchange!
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
Use MathJax to format equations. MathJax reference.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fphysics.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f481634%2fwhy-havent-we-yet-tried-accelerating-a-space-station-with-people-inside-to-a-ne%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
$begingroup$
Comments are not for extended discussion; this conversation has been moved to chat.
$endgroup$
– Chris♦
6 hours ago