>Rafael Vargas wrote:
>
>> Even if you travel at the speed of light, it'll take you several years
>>to reach
>> some of our neighbor stars.
>>
>
>Not exactly... It would be several years "earth time" but who cares, we
>ain't comin'
>back here anyway. At "c" the trip would be instant from the only point of
>view we
>care about (ours, aboard ship).
>
>Interstellar trips are going to be one way - just like the pioneers in the
>covered
>wagons (to name one of many historical precedents) - they knew they werent
>coming
>back, but they went anyway.
>
>Since "c" is impossible, we have to talk about "approaching c" - 0 .999c
>perhaps.
>Then a 10 LY trip takes only a few minutes. From the math of the Lorenz
>contraction
>- can't be precise at the moment, I don't have the formula in front of me.
>
>Now that we are being realistic, we have to take the acceleration that
>humans can
>tolerate into account - in a water bath, 10g is not unreasonable. At a
>constant 10g,
>with turnover halfway, the 10 LY trip takes a few weeks.
>
>Since we are being REALLY realistic, we gotta find a way to actually GET 10g
>constant for weeks - THAT would take more energy than ANYONE knows how to get.
>AntiMatter maybe ;-} The only other problem is shielding - the
>interstellar medium
>would get downright evil at those speeds...even the cockroaches would need
>a foot of
>lead ;-}
>
>
>
>


I like my warp engine better. No real acceleration involved. No impact
with interstellar
particles and perhaps no need for unimaginable energy sources.

Dr James Trimm