would not work without warp technology or stuff like wormholes. nothing can travel faster than light, so it would take a realllyyyyy long time to travel this distance. and with today technology i think there would be no humans anymore to look at after this time it took to get the mirror in place.
Not exactly. Ross 154 is a star that is almost exactly 10 light years away. We could send a self-replicating machine to that location. We already have the technology to accelerate things at speeds that could turn the travel time to 20-100 years. The machine arrives, replicates itself, and then scavenges materials from the surrounding star. They build the mirror and ta-da.
The biggest issue would be that the mirror would need to be absolutely massive in order for us to see. It would need to be a massive size in order to have a large enough angular diameter for us to see it even with the (I think) most accurate telescope - the Hubble Telescope. It would need to be 3,210,600,000 meters in diameter for the Hubble Telescope to see it. That is three times larger than the diameter of the sun which is only 1,391,000,000 meters in diameter. That much mass would just collapse into a star if it is possible for the materials to start fusion.
tl;dr The mirror is too big.
2
deleted
· 6 years ago
if you just send a roboter, thats a whole different thing. i thought about sending a gigant mirror to the location. but even your idea is not working. we don't have robots who could do that (yet). we dont even have a roboter yet who could build a base on moon. theoretically it's possible.. but not practical at the current standpoint of developement. and even if you could achieve 10 percent lightspeed or similar..you would need materials and rockets who don't get destroyed at this high speed. I don't think we could build such a rocket with our current technology.
We actually do have the technology for self-replicating machines. It's just a matter of convincing governments to fund it. Also, velocity in space isn't like velocity on Earth where going fast causes you to catch on fire and break. In a vaccum, like space, going 1000km/h would feel the same as standing perfectly still. It also wouldn't be as much a rocket as it would be a boat that we shoot with lasers. I'm not joking. They essentially make a sail and shoot lasers at it. The sail would reflect the light and gain velocity from it which would continue to go faster and faster. This particular idea is a bit young, but it's still perfectly possible and, like with most things today, could be done in our lifetimes with only a bit of money.
People seem to think that advanced technology is in the far off future when it's actually already existing today. It's just a small loan of a billion dollars away which is actually pretty cheap in government standards.
1
deleted
· 6 years ago
"We actually do have the technology for self-replicating machines." - sources? we would need a AI which is good enough to find the materials, then we would need an AI which can can build robots out of it, then we would stuff like energysources you can easy build / use etc.. i don't think that we already can do that.. it's really complex. sure, we have robots who can communicate in a swarm etc.. but i don't know any example of a self replicate robot without help of humans. stuff like electronic components etc. can't be build yet by robots. you would need to put a lot of research into this topic.. if you would freeze the developement of new technology, you could not achieve this with current tech. imho.
Perhaps I didn't make myself clear. We are perfectly capable of creating these machines today. We have everything needed except the money to do additional research and testing. It's the same way NASA has the technology to go to Mars or explore the entire Solar System if only they had the funding.
deleted
· 6 years ago
i know that there are concepts with lasers & giant sails, but this is at the current moment more of a concept (if i'm not wrong they did tested it tho) & you currently just have the tech for gaining speed.. not the tech to build rockets who don't get destroyed at this speeds.. so even if you can get a really high speed.. your rocket would get destroyed. (sorry for writing that slow^^)
·
Edited 6 years ago
deleted
· 6 years ago
"except the money to do additional research and testing" = more developement and research. i said WITHOUT further research and developement :P
and i doubt that we could build a GIANT (!) mirror & then bring him with the laser+sail concept to a 10 lightyears away location. imagine the fricking size of the sunsail as an example..the mirror alone is big as hell.. the sail needs to be bigger.. a lot bigger. the current concept is a small satelite / cubesat.. really small stuff.. and a biiiiiggggg sail and strong laser. i don't know if we would be able to even build such a big mirror :s
Like I said, the speed isn't an issue in space. Destruction from speed is only caused by friction and collision with the air/water. There is very, very little air in space and will only be 0.1 particles per cubic centimeter compared to 10^19 particules on Earth.
Edit: Of course we need research and development. I need research and development to build my pool, but that doesn't mean it's impossible to mankind.
·
Edited 6 years ago
deleted
· 6 years ago
the problem is that the space is not empty.. there is dust, particles etc which all do damage to the rocket / ship. even the current rockets are build rly strong so the micro collisions don't make holes etc.. earth near locations don't have that much stuff in way.. but.. imagine flying at like 30-50% lightspeed.. you will gather a lot of stuff while that.. and i doubt we could build a rocket who would not be destroyed by that. imagine it.. 10 lightyears distance.. there is "a lot of stuff" in way you could hit^^ navigate in such a speed is difficult.. if even possible.
·
Edited 6 years ago
deleted
· 6 years ago
and i don't even though much about navigation.. for that we would need a complete new system so the ship / rocket could navigate at such a speed.. which reference system should it use (like gps, but for the space.. i think nasa etc. are working on that, but i don't know if this system works for such distances).. could our computers even calculate the stuff needed for navigation at such speeds? (to fly around stuff etc) :s there is a lot of complicated stuff you would need to think about it :D its not as easy as it sounds^^
The ISS is still inside of Earth's atmosphere. It's not in space like people thinking.
It would indeed still be a problem, but it wouldn't be a major one. Let's go with the current sail's estimated size as 5318 meters squared. With one atom per centimeter, you'll have 531,800 impacts every centimeter moved. That's only 1.5E-18 newtons of force each. That makes the impact damage turn into pratically zero. I'm also no engineer, but I'm sure a drainage system could be created. Even so, ignoring debris, that would only be around 5.031109e22 atoms of the lightest element known to man. There are more atoms in a few grains of sand.
Look, I'm not saying "Psshh, that's easy shit" like you seem to think. I'm saying
"With the right amount of funding and preparation, it is very likely possible." I'm tired of arguing with your semantics. I'm gonna look at my memes.
·
Edited 6 years ago
deleted
· 6 years ago
i never said that it's impossible, just not without further developement and research.. i didn't wanted to annoy you, sorry x_x
The actual math of going the proposed 10-30% of lightspeed with debris impacts is rather problematic. You're thinking about how small the force is but not thinking about the surface area that the force is acting upon. A single atom hitting an object with the force of 10% of lightspeed will exert all that force on a single atom's worth of space.
At the 1/5 the speed of light (middle of the numbers given 10% and 30%) your space craft would cease function long before it reached it's destination.
_
edit: a good example of what would happen is the idea of super strength. If someone had the strength to pick up a car with one hand and they tried to do so they would punch of a hole right through it because of the surface area that a hand has compared to the force it is exerting to attempt to lift it. This is the same thing but with smaller surface areas and much much much much higher speeds.
The biggest issue would be that the mirror would need to be absolutely massive in order for us to see. It would need to be a massive size in order to have a large enough angular diameter for us to see it even with the (I think) most accurate telescope - the Hubble Telescope. It would need to be 3,210,600,000 meters in diameter for the Hubble Telescope to see it. That is three times larger than the diameter of the sun which is only 1,391,000,000 meters in diameter. That much mass would just collapse into a star if it is possible for the materials to start fusion.
tl;dr The mirror is too big.
People seem to think that advanced technology is in the far off future when it's actually already existing today. It's just a small loan of a billion dollars away which is actually pretty cheap in government standards.
and i doubt that we could build a GIANT (!) mirror & then bring him with the laser+sail concept to a 10 lightyears away location. imagine the fricking size of the sunsail as an example..the mirror alone is big as hell.. the sail needs to be bigger.. a lot bigger. the current concept is a small satelite / cubesat.. really small stuff.. and a biiiiiggggg sail and strong laser. i don't know if we would be able to even build such a big mirror :s
Edit: Of course we need research and development. I need research and development to build my pool, but that doesn't mean it's impossible to mankind.
It would indeed still be a problem, but it wouldn't be a major one. Let's go with the current sail's estimated size as 5318 meters squared. With one atom per centimeter, you'll have 531,800 impacts every centimeter moved. That's only 1.5E-18 newtons of force each. That makes the impact damage turn into pratically zero. I'm also no engineer, but I'm sure a drainage system could be created. Even so, ignoring debris, that would only be around 5.031109e22 atoms of the lightest element known to man. There are more atoms in a few grains of sand.
Look, I'm not saying "Psshh, that's easy shit" like you seem to think. I'm saying
"With the right amount of funding and preparation, it is very likely possible." I'm tired of arguing with your semantics. I'm gonna look at my memes.
At the 1/5 the speed of light (middle of the numbers given 10% and 30%) your space craft would cease function long before it reached it's destination.
_
edit: a good example of what would happen is the idea of super strength. If someone had the strength to pick up a car with one hand and they tried to do so they would punch of a hole right through it because of the surface area that a hand has compared to the force it is exerting to attempt to lift it. This is the same thing but with smaller surface areas and much much much much higher speeds.