this post was submitted on 01 Feb 2026
977 points (98.0% liked)

Science Memes

19089 readers
2653 users here now

Welcome to c/science_memes @ Mander.xyz!

A place for majestic STEMLORD peacocking, as well as memes about the realities of working in a lab.



Rules

  1. Don't throw mud. Behave like an intellectual and remember the human.
  2. Keep it rooted (on topic).
  3. No spam.
  4. Infographics welcome, get schooled.

This is a science community. We use the Dawkins definition of meme.



Research Committee

Other Mander Communities

Science and Research

Biology and Life Sciences

Physical Sciences

Humanities and Social Sciences

Practical and Applied Sciences

Memes

Miscellaneous

founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] ExLisper@lemmy.curiana.net 121 points 2 weeks ago (10 children)

Found a calculator: https://www.calctool.org/relativity/space-travel

Assuming we want to accelerate at a constant 1g for half of the travel and then brake at 1g for the second half of the travel we would need 151 years to get there but only 9.794 years would pass on the ship. Depending on the mass of the ship we would need coupe million/billion tons of fuel (anti-matter).

[–] Thorry@feddit.org 60 points 2 weeks ago (2 children)

Oh only a billion tons of anti-matter. Good thing we've already made a few nanograms, so in a billion years or so we'll have plenty.

[–] Hotzilla@sopuli.xyz 19 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

Yeah, and antimatter converts to pure energy with e=mc^2 what means that 60 grams contains like Hiroshima worth of energy

[–] Thorry@feddit.org 8 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

In theory yes, in practice we have absolutely no idea how to actually do that and use the energy in an efficient or practical way. Even just on paper without limitations of technology or costs, we have no idea. Physics simply isn't as clean or neat like that in real life.

[–] sga@piefed.social 2 points 2 weeks ago

adding to this comment, the best way that we currently know how to extract this energy is using spinning black holes, with theoretical efficiency of ~42% (answer to the universe)(src: a minute physics video precisely on this). the naive solution to just touch them gets like 0.01-0.1% of total energy, so in bad case, we need trillion years.

[–] Valmond@lemmy.dbzer0.com 40 points 2 weeks ago (5 children)

How can it take 151 years to go 150 light years when not close to lightspeed most of the time? I get the 9 year thing, but 151 years seems wrong.

[–] ExLisper@lemmy.curiana.net 63 points 2 weeks ago (3 children)

Smarter people than me on the internet calculate that at constant 1g you only need 2.5 years to get very close to speed of light. So I guess you accelerate fast enough and reach 'almost speed of light' very early in your travel and total time is almost as if you traveled at speed of light the whole time.

[–] Tiresia@slrpnk.net 19 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

The main advantage of keeping accelerating when you're at >90% of the speed of light is that it means you arrive faster in subjective time. You could take 160 years to get there and use ten times less fuel (or thereabouts), but the subjective travel time would go up by decades.

[–] ExLisper@lemmy.curiana.net 10 points 2 weeks ago

I think having constant gravity on the ship during the entire flight is also a big plus. Designing a ship where you can live in 0g for years and in 1g for years would be like designing two ships in one.

[–] trolololol@lemmy.world 7 points 2 weeks ago

Not that smarter when they forget you're running out of gas by the Oort cloud. Gotta spread ~~christianism~~ capitalism there and build a petrol station before we go further.

[–] Grandwolf319@sh.itjust.works 5 points 2 weeks ago

Earth’s gravity being what it is a blessing cause it means we can do interstellar travel faster.

[–] Grail@multiverse.soulism.net 34 points 2 weeks ago

The closer you get to lightspeed, the slower you accelerate (from an outside perspective). It's actually close to lightspeed for most of the time.

[–] domdanial@reddthat.com 19 points 2 weeks ago

I just used the calc, it's closer to 152 years. Which I assume means acceleration at 1g for about a year to reach .999c, and deceleration for the same time.

I just confirmed with dV= a*t, a year of 1g(9.8m/s/s) gets you just over the speed of light. I think it's more complicated than that, If I remember right relativistic speeds require more and more energy to accelerate so you can't ever "reach" light speed.

Most of the journey is spent traveling very close to light speed. It's not a linear ramping up and ramping down of speed, since it takes more energy to accelerate the closer you get to light speed. Rather you quickly accelerate to near light speed and spend most of the trip working on that last small bit of velocity.

[–] skulblaka@sh.itjust.works 5 points 2 weeks ago

Constant acceleration at 9.8m/s^2 in a given direction will bring you close to the speed of light eventually, but yeah, I'm also not super sure how this math checks out

[–] SubArcticTundra@lemmy.ml 32 points 2 weeks ago (3 children)

50% chance of being in the habitable zone

Imagine sitting on a spaceship for 151 years just to discover your parents' bet was wrong

[–] Zolidus@lemmy.world 19 points 2 weeks ago
[–] ExLisper@lemmy.curiana.net 14 points 2 weeks ago (2 children)
[–] SubArcticTundra@lemmy.ml 5 points 2 weeks ago

Ohhhhhhh, ok that's clever!

[–] Trainguyrom@reddthat.com 2 points 2 weeks ago

Imagine getting there and finding out a ship left 50 years after yours that flies faster and arrived 2 years before yours!

[–] HeyThisIsntTheYMCA@lemmy.world 8 points 2 weeks ago (2 children)

Just imagine sitting on a spaceship for 151 years to find out they got there first because in 151 years space travel tech has improved so much they can travel there in 35 years.

[–] plecks@programming.dev 8 points 2 weeks ago (2 children)

Unless we figure out FTL travel that wouldn't be possible.

[–] bufalo1973@piefed.social 1 points 2 weeks ago

Alcubierre engine.

[–] HeyThisIsntTheYMCA@lemmy.world 1 points 2 weeks ago

so with the solar mass of antimatter ponies that are propelling your spaceship, please tell me how yours works in reality.

[–] tetris11@feddit.uk 4 points 2 weeks ago (2 children)

Nah, Earth ran out of ideas in the 2020s

[–] HeyThisIsntTheYMCA@lemmy.world 2 points 2 weeks ago

i mean shit this isn't even my idea jerry pournelle wroute a short story about it ages ago

[–] UltraGiGaGigantic@lemmy.ml 2 points 1 week ago

Maybe ChatGPT has some ideas

[–] SpaceNoodle@lemmy.world 9 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago)

Time for Bussard to invent those collectors

[–] AngryCommieKender@lemmy.world 8 points 2 weeks ago

So a bit quicker than terraforming Venus by chucking several oceans worth of ice at it, and some cyanobactera once it cools down in a few hundred thousand years.

[–] m0darn@lemmy.ca 7 points 2 weeks ago (3 children)

What about accelerating 1g for 16 hours of 'day', then 8 hours of 3g 'night'. It would be one hell of a weighted blanket lol.

[–] mexicancartel@lemmy.dbzer0.com 4 points 2 weeks ago

It's not just blanket entire body experience that force including internal organs.. So i guess sleeping with tgat would be more than just uncomfortable

[–] HeyThisIsntTheYMCA@lemmy.world 2 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

I say have a spinny ship that does that with the shape of the ring. Some kind of parabolic bullshit I'm sure there's a way to get it to math without having to have a 1g ring and a 3g ring but that works too

[–] m0darn@lemmy.ca 3 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

The purpose of my idea is to average 2g without expecting people to function in 2g. Not just for the purpose of a weighted blanket

[–] HeyThisIsntTheYMCA@lemmy.world 1 points 2 weeks ago

I mean, yeah. They'd probably have reasons to have stuff in the high grav areas besides sleep areas. I'm not a spaceshipologist I can't think of anything but radon to keep there tho

[–] dreamkeeper@literature.cafe 2 points 2 weeks ago

It would only save you a few months

[–] Venat0r@lemmy.world 5 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago) (3 children)

And you'll only need about 320 million GWh per ~80kg person... plus 4 million GWh per kg of supplies, equipment and ship weight...

[–] Venator@lemmy.nz 4 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago)

Oh and also thats just the pure energy for acceleration/deceleration, not life support, steering, thrust ineffeciencies, take off, landing etc... 😅

[–] trolololol@lemmy.world 4 points 2 weeks ago
[–] bufalo1973@piefed.social 3 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago) (1 children)

So 340 PWh per person. A couple of guys with a static bike and a dynamo and that's it😜

Note: the Earth receives 170 PWh of energy from the Sun in a year.

[–] Venat0r@lemmy.world 1 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Sounds feasible for a fusion reactor to provide at some point in the very distant future.

[–] bufalo1973@piefed.social 1 points 1 week ago

Twice the full energy the Sun gives the Earth in a year for each person is not a future fusion reactor level. 😀

[–] Grandwolf319@sh.itjust.works 3 points 2 weeks ago

I’m guessing you probably go faster than 0.9C after six months, given that the difference is 1 year.

[–] ColeSloth@discuss.tchncs.de 0 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago) (1 children)

Your statement makes things sound a bit confusing.

To clarify, if you are inside the ship, 152 years will pass.

Edit: Nevermind. Time travel is stupid.

[–] FUCKING_CUNO@lemmy.dbzer0.com 13 points 2 weeks ago

No, the people in the ship will experience less time then 152 years. Relativity tells us the faster an observer is moving, the slower it moves through time.