What Are the Implications of Being the First Intelligent Life in the Galaxy?

[turbo]

One hundred years ago, the fastest thing we had could maybe go 100 miles per hour (about .03 miles per second). 50 years ago we broke the sound barrier, (about .2 miles per second).

We have had the technology to accelerate small objects to speeds faster than the speed of sound for a whole lot longer than 50 years. Around the time of the American Civil War, Jules Verne wrote a novel in which this technology was used to fly people to the Moon.

 

[WarrenPlatts]

Quite true, but I was thinking of manned vehicles mainly. Granted, we haven't constructed a manned craft that is as fast as Ulysses, but it could be done with today's technology.

 

[Chronos]

The effects of acceleration on the crew is another consideration. 1g would obviously be tolerable. I think a constant acceleration of 3g would surely be intolerable. 2g might be marginally tolerable for a very fit crew. This would also apply to the braking phase of the journey. I haven't crunched the numbers [which is not terribly difficult], but am guessing we might be talking on the order of a century to reach alpha century.

 

[vincentm]

What i'd like to know is how do we know the requirements here on Earth (when life did begin) aren't the same ones needed for life to begin elsewhere in our galaxy or any other?

 

[WarrenPlatts]

Just open up a can of Cambell's prebiotic soup and zap it in the microwave.

The problem is that while it is easy to get life started, it is much more difficult to evolve human-level intelligence.

 

[WarrenPlatts]

The effects of acceleration on the crew is another consideration. 1g would obviously be tolerable. I think a constant acceleration of 3g would surely be intolerable. 2g might be marginally tolerable for a very fit crew. This would also apply to the braking phase of the journey. I haven't crunched the numbers [which is not terribly difficult], but am guessing we might be talking on the order of a century to reach alpha century.

If the astronauts were underwater in some sort of tank with the right density, they could withstand at least 10-20+ g's.

 

[Chronos]

That is just plain wrong, Warren. The water also succumbs to g-forces. You still get squashed against the sides of the vessel. Inertia is an unforgiving mistress.

 

[WarrenPlatts]

That is just plain wrong, Warren. The water also succumbs to g-forces. You still get squashed against the sides of the vessel. Inertia is an unforgiving mistress.

Are you sure? I came across this idea in an Arthur C. Clarke novel, and he usually knows his stuff.

It's like that old homework problem: if you're making a left turn in an automobile, in which direction will a helium balloon move? (It moves to the left.) If the density was too high, you would be forced to the surface, and if it was too low, you would get squashed on the bottom. But if the density was just right, you wouldn't get squashed--you would just float. Granted, the pressure would increase, and might require some decompression time to avoid the bends.

So, a 30-g acceleration would be the equivalent of being 1,000 feet underwater. Humans have free-dived down to 1-km of ocean. That would be the equivalent of a wopping 100-g acceleration.

 

[Andre]

Sorry Chronos.

What water does is balancing the pressure on the body against the blood pressure. So if there is a high g load in the vertical axis, the blood wants to drain into the legs, whilst lowering the pressure in the head. Now, the surrounding water reacts the same way, increasing the pressure in the lower parts, balancing the pressure on the body and countering the tendency of the blood to sink.

So yes, in the water the effect of g-force is less indeed. There are water-filled g-suits.

 

[WarrenPlatts]

So, at 100 g's, and ignoring relativity, one could get to .9 c after a 76 hour burn. Thus, one could get to Alpha centauri in about 5 or 6 Earth years, but for the astronauts, it would only seem like 2-3 years.