Why is interstellar travel so hopelessly difficult?

Click For Summary
SUMMARY

Interstellar travel, particularly to the TRAPPIST-1 system located 40 light-years away, faces significant challenges due to the energy requirements for achieving relativistic speeds. While time dilation allows travelers to experience shorter durations during their journey, the Earth’s frame of reference still dictates that the trip would take approximately 80 years round trip. Current propulsion technologies, such as rockets capable of 1g acceleration, can theoretically reduce travel time to about 14.6 years for the traveler, but sustaining such thrust over long periods remains technologically unfeasible. The discussion emphasizes the need for advancements in propulsion systems to make interstellar travel a reality.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of Einstein's theory of relativity, specifically time dilation and length contraction.
  • Familiarity with the concept of relativistic rockets and their energy requirements.
  • Knowledge of current propulsion technologies, including fusion torch drives.
  • Awareness of the challenges posed by cosmic radiation and particle collisions in space.
NEXT STEPS
  • Research the principles of Einstein's theory of relativity, focusing on time dilation and length contraction.
  • Explore the concept of relativistic rockets and their energy demands for interstellar travel.
  • Investigate current advancements in propulsion technologies, particularly fusion torch drives and their limitations.
  • Study the implications of cosmic radiation and particle collisions on spacecraft design and safety.
USEFUL FOR

Aerospace engineers, physicists, science fiction writers, and anyone interested in the feasibility of interstellar travel and the underlying physics involved.

Ranvir
Messages
13
Reaction score
10
So, I have been thinking about TRAPPIST-1 and how far away that system is from us. It is 40ly away from Earth, according to our frame of reference. This is often put in a way that makes one think that even at speeds close to that of light, it will take almost 40 years to get there.

The muons in our upper atmosphere, on the other hand, show something different. Even though they are short lived, unstable particles they often make it to the surface of the Earth just because of their high velocities. Here length contraction/ time dilation makes them survive long enough( Or brings us closer to them).

Won't the same argument work for human subjects, traveling at relativistic speeds?
The distance between them and TRAPPIST-1 would be so small that they may finish it in a couple of years, depending on their precise speeds.

I don't know, if I am missing something here, except the Earth's reference frame where it is inevitably 40 years, but the astronaut might not be that discomforted by the journey, at the end of the day. (Feel free to throw quantitative arguments and maths to make your point, if you want to)
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Physics news on Phys.org
You have it right - the traveller can experience arbitrarily short time if they can tolerate the acceleration. But the energy requirements to accelerate even a small mass to near light speed are horrific. Google for "relativistic rocket" if you want the depressing details - even total conversion drives need (from memory) millions of times the mass of the payload in fuel.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: Ranvir
Ibix said:
You have it right - the traveller can experience arbitrarily short time if they can tolerate the acceleration. But the energy requirements to accelerate even a small mass to near light speed are horrific. Google for "relativistic rocket" if you want the depressing details - even total conversion drives need (from memory) millions of times the mass of the payload in fuel.
I live in horrific details, thanks for that ;)
However, what used to confuse me were the articles claiming, it would take me almost 40 years to get there even at light speed or 99.9% of it. I don't even care if my rocket gains so much mass because of high velocity that it turns to a black hole, tbh :P
 
You can get there and back in arbitrarily short time by your own clocks, but it will inevitably have taken 80+ years by Earth's clocks. Whether that means that it takes 80 years or no time at all depends on your application. If you ask your love to wait for your return (you'll only be gone a few minutes!) you may be disappointed.

A word of advice - forget you ever heard the phrase "relativistic mass". It causes all sorts of confusion. For example, the idea that your rocket might turn into a black hole. http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/BlackHoles/black_fast.html
 
Ibix said:
A word of advice - forget you ever heard the phrase "relativistic mass". It causes all sorts of confusion. For example, the idea that your rocket might turn into a black hole. http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/BlackHoles/black_fast.html
Thanks, it actual cleared a lot of air. It raises more questions too, but I guess, I might have to crack open a few books and sort them out for myself.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: Battlemage! and Ibix
Another issue is that at high relativistic speeds, collisions with small particles in the interstellar void could be catastrophic. Then there is the need for shielding from cosmic gamma rays. Etc. ... Many impediments for our current state of technology.
 
A ship using a constant 1g acceleration half-way toward its destination, and then applying the same 1g acceleration to slow down for the other half can travel 40 light years in about 7.3 years of traveler time. If you made a round trip, You'd experience about 14.6 years, but about 83.8 years would pass on Earth. Rockets that can apply 1g of acceleration are well within our grasp. Rockets that can do this for years at a time, however, are far beyond reach at this point. So, the main problem we have to tackle for relativistic space travel is the ability to apply a useful amount of thrust for long periods of time practically. Even a highly efficient fusion torch drive would have a hard time doing this.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 21 ·
Replies
21
Views
3K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
672
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • · Replies 38 ·
2
Replies
38
Views
5K
  • · Replies 63 ·
3
Replies
63
Views
6K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
3K
Replies
15
Views
2K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
2K
  • · Replies 65 ·
3
Replies
65
Views
12K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
4K