7 Earth-Size Planets Found by NASA

[Smitty-48]

You can't generate thrust without an energy source, there is no energy source which would sustain constant accelleration, the Orion Drive is not constant accelleration, it's 1g accelleration, but only for 10 days.

To reach 99% of the speed of light, you would require 1g accelleration for 41 years objective time, which would require an energy source which yielded 1.8 trillion megajoules per kilogram, which is about as realistic as invoking "magic" as your fuel source, "warp drive" by any other name.

[Speaker to Animals]

Yes. But the amount of energy generated and how much thrust that translates to depends upon the propulsion system. With things like chemical rockets, it's a huge difference, but with something like the Orion drive, your problem is that you generate far too much thrust and have to dampen it.

It's not like there exists one number for the amount of energy you need to maintain 1 g. It depends upon the propulsion system and the mass of the ship. Nor is it impossible. We already know how to achieve 1 g. We have known it for a long time now.

[SuburbanFarmer]

[Smitty-48]

1g is easy, the operating word is constant, constant acelleration at 1g to relativistic speeds, is not the same thing as acelleration to 1g, to reach relativistic speeds, wherein there would be significant time dilation, there is no energy source available, not even a theoretical one, without theoretical, you're into handwaving, same as saying "warp drive", "hyperspace" and/or "God will miracle our asses there"

To get speeds in excess of 90% of the speed of light, the constant accelleration would have to be at 1g, for decades, that's an exponential energy requirement for which no source exists.

[Speaker to Animals]

1g is easy, the operating word is constant, constant acelleration at 1g to relativistic speeds, is not the same thing as acelleration to 1g, to reach relativistic speeds, wherein there would be significant time dilation, there is no energy source, not even a theoretical one, without theoretical, you're into handwaving, same as saying "warp drive", "hyperspace" and/or "God will miracle our asses there"

Orion drive. It just needs a very large payload of fissionable material. That's it, pal. We would need a decent space mining system in place to be able to gather those materials. Other than that.. welcome to the 1960s.

[Smitty-48]

1g is easy, the operating word is constant, constant acelleration at 1g to relativistic speeds, is not the same thing as acelleration to 1g, to reach relativistic speeds, wherein there would be significant time dilation, there is no energy source, not even a theoretical one, without theoretical, you're into handwaving, same as saying "warp drive", "hyperspace" and/or "God will miracle our asses there"

Orion drive. It just needs a very large payload of fissionable material. That's it, pal. We would need a decent space mining system in place to be able to gather those materials. Other than that.. welcome to the 1960s.

Even uranium only has an energy density of 80,000,000 megajoules per kilogram, you're nowhere near the required 1.8 trillion with nuclear fission, not even in the same ballpark.

By your own calculations, you'd need a fissionable energy source 2000 times more powerful per kilo than uranium; doesn't exist, and as such, it's no different than saying "unobtainium"

[jbird4049]

Enough of this jawing! It's entertaining and all, but just give me my warp drive!

[Okeefenokee]

I thought we covered this last time.

Newtons, motherfuckers.

[Smitty-48]

Newtons are a measurement of force, not energy, we're measuring the amount of energy it would require, per kilogram, to accelerate a mass to 99% of the speed of light, and per kilogram, the energy required is 1.8 trillion megajoules, so if your spacecraft weighed 100,000 metric tonnes, it would be 100,000,000 x 1.8 trillion megajoules.

[Okeefenokee]

your