• Bluewing@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        11 hours ago

        There are a few speculative ideas on faster than light travel. Such as worm holes, quantum tunneling, and super fluid vacuum theories.

        Are they real in the sense that we can know how they can work today? Nope. But lots of ideas we take for granted today were “impossible” not that long ago. The fact that real physicists are even thinking about those possibilities could lead to something in the future.

  • RedFrank24@piefed.social
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    51
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    24 hours ago

    Only 150 light years away?! Wow, that’s practically next door! Now all we need to do is figure out how to go light speed and even then it’ll take a further 300 years just to know if the colonists got there safely or not!

    • SkunkWorkz@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      23
      ·
      16 hours ago

      When the first colonists arrive the planet will already be inhabited by humans since 100 years after they left we invent the warp drive. And trying to intercept them mid travel and board them on to the new ship is impossible since they travel near the speed of light in the darkness of space.

      • RedFrank24@piefed.social
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        13
        ·
        16 hours ago

        I’m pretty sure that’s a sidequest in Starfield. The ECS Constant colony ship set off in 2140 to colonise a planet, arriving in 2330 at the planet Paradiso, which had become a luxury resort planet for the rich, because shortly after the ship left, humanity invented the grav drive and every ship just zoomed right past them.

          • tomiant@piefed.social
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            5
            ·
            11 hours ago

            Whenever a game gives me a questline like “a mysterious ship is hailing you. You have never seen anything like it, you get the feeling that it is very important” I blast the fucking thing out of the sky.

            Don’t tell me what I think is important, dev.

      • I_Has_A_Hat@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        10 hours ago

        Any civilization capable of sending missiles across the galaxy should be more than capable of simply sending a tight beam of gamma radiation to sterilize the planet. No need for earth shattering explosions. Just a flood of radiation engulfing the planet for a minute or two and everything not buried a mile underground will be dead. There would be no warning either.

        And that’s if they don’t bother to just blow up the sun.

  • SpecialSetOfSieves@lemmy.world
    cake
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    16
    ·
    23 hours ago

    Well. This is quite a pearl.

    I don’t have time to read a 16-page paper in detail, but I did want to know how the host star compares to everyone’s favourite local solitary K-type dwarf, Epsilon Eridani. It’s slightly less massive (~0.7 solar mass versus 0.8 for ε Eri) and quite a bit less bright (difference of about 0.1 solar luminosity), but I especially wanted to know about the age of the star. ε Eri is quite young and frothy, but the investigators here infer from the star’s motion that it belongs to the thin disk, up to a whopping 10 billion years old.

    So we are definitely not talking about an ε Eri-type system. So that should be mean no dust disks, no crazy activity from the star, and no newish planets still carving out their places through the system.

    You’ve really got to wonder about such an old planet, however cold and quiescent it may be. The potential paths for climatic evolution on such a world boggle the mind, however cold it is. You could get an episodically or formerly active world like Mars, a beautifully unstable oscillatory world like Earth, or something completely different. Assuming any atmosphere, of course (safe assumption?). And that’s without considering whether there are any other planets in the system.

    I really wouldn’t spend too much time thinking about this candidate detection, as we have literally seen just the one transit, and we will need to observe this fellow for a while to confirm the discovery, learn about other planets in the system, and so on. The investigators themselves note that the transit was shallow (meaning difficult to detect), but the good news is that the host star is fairly bright, well within reach of amateur equipment. I wonder if citizen scientists will be able to follow the transits.

    Exciting times.

    • tomiant@piefed.social
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      11 hours ago

      302 years later the ship comes back with a pile of gold and a note:

      “Delicious. Please send more.”

    • rbn@sopuli.xyz
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      13 hours ago

      Would be a funny conspiracy theory that this is how humans spawned on earth. Not evolution, but just some alien civilization shooting all their pedos into space, some of which were lucky to land on a habitable planet.

      • ProfessorHoover@infosec.pub
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        12 hours ago

        You should read Hitchikers Guide To The Galaxy. One planet decides to ship off all their “useless” people on a colony ship pretending they’re saving them from the apocalypse and everyone else is coming soon.

    • stephen@lazysoci.al
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      104
      ·
      1 day ago

      I like the way you think. I think the sun is closer though. Probably easier to get too. I don’t know I don’t work on space travel.

      • Aquila@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        71
        ·
        1 day ago

        Its actually easier to launch stuff out of the solar system than to slow stuff down enough to fall into the sun

        • stephen@lazysoci.al
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          24
          ·
          1 day ago

          I keep hearing that. Again - I don’t work on space physics, so forgive my ignorance on why. However- I’m good with billionaires taking as long as needed to get to our sun, some other maybe hospitable planet, or just dying in the cold of interstellar space while we observe a new holiday of them all fuckin’ off from terra firma.

            • sga@piefed.social
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              5
              ·
              12 hours ago

              technically, it uses a lot of energy (depending on how much the blade weighs). it is not electrical energy, but gravitational potential energy

          • piccolo@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            32
            ·
            1 day ago

            Earth is traveling 29.8km/s around the sun. In order to go to the sun, you have to slow down. But to escape the sun from earth, you need to accelerate to 42km/s or just 12km/s relative.

          • prettybunnys@piefed.social
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            4
            arrow-down
            7
            ·
            1 day ago

            I’m a certified internet space-e-ologist and can confirm that it’s all conjecture cuz we’ve never tried.

            So for scientific purposes we should send a capsule in both directions.

              • prettybunnys@piefed.social
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                5
                ·
                1 day ago

                I was referring to chucking billionaires into the sun.

                I’m sure the physics are wildly different so we need to test it, is my point.

            • fartographer@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              5
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              1 day ago

              Are you trying to get us fucking killed??? Those types of speeds are capable of reversing the Earth’s rotation, and turning back time! But even more likely is that the Earth will stop rotating and we’ll all get crushed because of gravity vs centrifugal force, and the world will stop being flat and then we’ll all fall off!

        • S_H_K@lemmy.dbzer0.com
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          1 day ago

          Hear me out what if we aaaiiimm it real good to the sun like “follow the bright ball buddy”?

          • GreyEyedGhost@piefed.ca
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            9
            ·
            1 day ago

            The launch technology is already taken care of. We still need interplanetary radiation shielding and a landing system that doesn’t bounce them across the landscape like a ball, but that’s no reason we can’t start now.

        • Grandwolf319@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 day ago

          Is it because of our position?

          As in, is it fair to say in terms of potential gravitational energy, that we are basically outside of the “centre” of sun’s gravity?

          • MotoAsh@piefed.social
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            8
            ·
            1 day ago

            Not sure what you mean by the question, but it’s because we’re in orbit around the sun. We’re already going way too fast, so you’d have to slow down, and slow down a lot.

            It’s actually a kinda’ fun challenge in Kerbal Space Program to hit the sun, and KSP’s solar system is much smaller than ours (meaning everything is much closer and easier to hit).

            • Grandwolf319@sh.itjust.works
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              1 day ago

              I meant whether we are farther away from the sun or not. As in, would it take less energy to hit the sun if we started from Mercury.

              But now I realize that it’s our momentum given earths orbit. So I guess it would be harder from mercury cause it’s going faster?

              • MotoAsh@piefed.social
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                4
                ·
                1 day ago

                Nope, it’d me much easier from Mercury. A higher orbit has more energy. A space ship has to speed up to increase it’s orbit.

                Think of it like the old expression about what an orbit even is: You’re still falling same as always, you’re just moving to the side fast enough to always miss. Earth is ‘missing’ the Sun by a whole lot more than Mercury is ‘missing’ the Sun.

          • Trainguyrom@reddthat.com
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            1 day ago

            Basically because the planet the craft is being launched from is hurtling around the sun, you have to first cancel out all of that…let’s call it horizontal motion. Its the same way that orbits around earth work, you throw the thing horizontally fast enough and it will just fall around the planet. Want it to stop orbiting? Now you have to slow it down enough that it no longer falls around the planet but falls onto the planet.

            Well while things are falling around (orbiting) the Earth, the Earth is falling around (orbiting) the sun. To launch something from earth and have it hit the sun, it first needs to get through all of Earth’s atmosphere, achieve orbit around the Earth, then exit the Earth’s sphere of orbital influence by increasing the height of the orbit so that the craft is no longer orbiting the Earth but orbiting the Sun, then decrease that orbit around the sun until eventually you get so close to the sun you fall into it rather than falling around it.

            Now, if we were a real space program planning a real mission, we’d probably do something frugal and smart like using gravity assists to make the whole endeavor more achievable (which is exactly what the Parker Solar Probe did!)

      • trolololol@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        1 day ago

        Hear me out. What if we get that billionaire submarine company to build 2 big rockets, each one full of billionaire. We’d say one is going to do an exclusive tour near the sun, and the other is going to that fancy new planet. No one can go on both, because whatever, just bs that they leave at the same time. And limited seats to the highest bidder.

        I mean the thing doesn’t even need to work. Just take their money and ship them to their doom, then build public houses with their money and put on space YouTube to see them squirm.