Yahoo Answers is shutting down on May 4th, 2021 (Eastern Time) and beginning April 20th, 2021 (Eastern Time) the Yahoo Answers website will be in read-only mode. There will be no changes to other Yahoo properties or services, or your Yahoo account. You can find more information about the Yahoo Answers shutdown and how to download your data on this help page.
Trending News
12 Answers
- Anonymous1 decade agoFavorite Answer
yes, the speed isn't the problem, its the acceleration.... to rapidly accelerate to that speed would take a tremendous amount of conventional fuel... what you would need is something nuclear with a much slower accelration rate and no depletable fuel source or a radioactive fuel source that will last thousands of years. The problem with such rockest is that that take years if not decades to approach a reasonable speed... you would need food and water for years... there would be no acceleration curve, you would be stuc accelerating at .001g for years, and then more years of decelration... the only possible benefit is that mass or size would not be a factor, so we could conceiveably make "generation ships"... huge habitats where we take along whole farms and herds of animals. Ion Drives, plasma drives and nuclear drives of the NERVA type would be our best bet
- QuadrillianLv 71 decade ago
There are immense problems involved with near light speed.
Remember that space is laced with dust and a tenuous gas. At light speed any vehicle travelling through such a medium would get thoroughly sand-blasted to pieces.
Also, it has been calculated that to propel a reasonable sized vehicle to such a velocity would require more that the total of all energy ever produced by all of humanity.
Here is an interesting site on the subject. It's a bit commicky but a good read. Enjoy:
http://www.projectrho.com/rocket/
Cheers!
- Larry454Lv 71 decade ago
Well in a sense, you are already there. There are galaxies that are receding from us at well over 50% light speed. That means we are also receding from them. Notice that there are no noticeable ill effects.
But back to your question. There is no way to maintain a positive acceleration for the weeks and months and years that it would take to approach light speed using today's chemical propulsion. You have to carry too much mass in the form of fuel.
There are ideas that could work using various forms of nuclear propulsion. I suspect that all of them are at least 100 years in the future, and all would still require a great deal of energy. Solar sails would not require energy addition by us, but they would have to be gigantic - like significantly larger than Earth.
So there is no good way to approach the speed of light relative to Earth right now. But you can get fairly close if you pick a distant galaxy with a big redshift as your reference frame and just step in the opposite direction.
- Anonymous1 decade ago
No, because time would slow down to almost not moving in the ship if you approach the speed of light. According to Einstein's Special Theory of Relativity, which is more than just E = mc^2:
m = m0 / √(1- v2/c2)
where m0 = an object’s mass at rest
v = velocity of the object in relation to a stationary observer
c = the speed of light (coming from the word “celeritas,” Latin for “swiftness”)
m = the mass of the object
According to this equation, no object can travel faster than the speed of light. As an object approaches the speed of light, so much energy is converted to mass that it no longer accelerates.
Source(s): World Almanac 2008 - How do you think about the answers? You can sign in to vote the answer.
- MorningfoxLv 71 decade ago
No, not with today's technology. The fastest man-man object, Helios 2, reached 247,510 km/h = 0.023% of light speed. In order to do that, it had to dive toward the sun. To get to even 10% of light speed, it would need to go 436 times faster, which would take at least 200,000 times more energy.
Maybe in 200 years ....
- Gary BLv 71 decade ago
No.
TODAY'S technology use the action / reaction principle: Push hot gasses out the REAR of the rocket, and the rocket moves forward.. There is a limit to how fast this can go, though. A rocket cannot go any faster in a forwards direction than the hot gas particles can go in a backwards direction.
With current chemical based rocket, the fastest you can get those particle to move is about 50,000 miler per hour, so the fastest we can get a rocket to go USING TECHNOLOGY RIGHT NOW is about 50,000 MPH. The speed of light is 670,608,000 MPH.
There are NO other forms of rocket propulsion currently available. in 200 years -- maybe. Right now -- no.
- ?Lv 44 years ago
i imagine that element holiday is in ordinary words conceivable contained in the technology fiction videos or thoughts . merely imagine that if we had a time device , then what ought to we likely do? we ought to flow to the previous time to come across it . yet presently there we do not have so one can do this . Now merely imagine that there's a time device contained in the destiny so as that the persons of that era can extremely come to our era or our ancestor elements . yet have u ever heard about this from our mothers and fathers or grandparents that in that element one or a lot of human beings got here from the destiny from the time device. This proves that the time holiday replaced into not there , isn't there and could be not there..................
- Anonymous1 decade ago
No If NASA could people could go to Mars in a few weeks and leave anytime with
a good launch window.
- pc-5Lv 61 decade ago
I don't believe such technology exists today.
If it does, our galaxy would slowly undergo a massive unspeakable mutation that would baffle a lot of people.