Why is it considered so impossible to send a manned spacecraft outside of the solar system? Voyager 1 managed to leave the solar system in under 50 years using heavily outdated technology. The main problem is probably supplies, but with enough planning i doubt it would be impossible to create a large cargo area and send supplies to it every few months like the ISS. If there was only a small crew of 3 or 4 people instead of the dozens on the ISS, cargo shipments could likely be stretched out to a much more realistic few years.
>>16259297Ok let’s let you sit in a spaceship for 50 years. Have fun with no food and space radiation after the first year.
>>16259305radiation isn't real
>>16259297Usually, they're taking about going to exoplanets. A (one-way) mission to the heliosheath could be doable if that was the kind of thing valued by society.
>>16259305There could still be slow moving supply shuttles placed periodically; using proper timing, those could be used to deliver supplies to the crew.Also the radiation in space could easily be blocked using a thick lead shell around the shuttle; although the weight would definitely slow it down, the shuttle could simply use a more powerful reactor to increase in speed and circumvent the extra mass.
>>16259297>Radiation>Lack of gravity>Other deep space hazards known and unknown>General complexity and needed redundancy in advanced life support. You need a massive rotating space craft with a gamma ray proof shield and your own indoor greenhouse of plants to help scrub the air. Not to mention the massive amount of water you will have to bring. I've done basic math assuming Star Ship actually worked, it doesn't, and it would take hundreds if not thousands of launches to get all that materiel into orbit and build the ship. You'd have to build an orbital ship yard first, another 1000 Star Ship launches. Assuming Star Ship worked perfectly you'd need roughly 6-7 years of launches one a day every day to just get the material into space. But you'd also have to launch workers and maybe additional space stations to house them. So 10-15 years of work to build one ship and it would take a magical unicorn of a rocket that doesn't exist and all the world's people to commit to peace and work towards this project. Good luck.
>>16259316>a thick lead shellKEK, my sweet sweet summer child. Water is lighter and works just fine. The radiation can be scrubbed and the water recycled into life support and hydroponics. Retard. >Just launch lead into space! >There could still be slow moving supply shuttles placed periodicallyNo you don't understand the basic physics of motion. You won't have any supplies except what you bring with you on launch day.
>>16259325>No you don't understand the basic physics of motion. You won't have any supplies except what you bring with you on launch day.Hold on, this is obviously sci-fi, so suspending disbelief regarding fuel costs or engineering, theoretically, if the original manned capsule is placed in ever-larger diameter orbits around the Sun, successive rendezvous missions could be done to resupply both fuel and sustenance.
>>16259429If you have magic available just use that.>>>/lit/ is that way
>>16259297It's just a matter of time, power source size of the ship. The slower the power source, the more self-sustaining you need the ship to be. It is technically doable, but it requires very large spaceship to sustain what could be a voyage for decades.
>>16259297It's not impossible at all. It's just that it is beyond our current capabilities unless the world governments decide to pool all the remaining resources into one ship to save our species.
>>16259323obviously we would need space factories, asteroid mining and staging facilities on the moon first
>>16259297It is possible, but very hard with our current space infrastructure. Give it a few centuries and we will be sending thousands.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wdP_UDSsurohttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yWlpNm1C5gw
>>16259297There is a certain minimum number of genetically divergent (i.e. unrelated) individuals are needed in a gene pool to maintain a healthy genetic diversity over the generations. For humans it is an estimated 497 individuals (no joke) although 1,000+ is to be preferred. The general rule of thumb is the "50/500" guideline — that a population founded by 50 genetically diverse humans in isolation would last about 2,000 years before inbreeding did them in, while 500 or more stand a chance of lasting indefinitely so long as all of them reproduce and no major disasters wipe out a significant part of the gene pool during that time (although as with everything else involving genetics, this is a gross oversimplification and varies greatly with the conditions encountered).
>>16259297>Why is it considered so impossible to send a manned spacecraft outside of the solar system?Because robots do it cheaper and with no risk to human life. No amount of crying by retards brought up on 1960s-tier science fiction space adventures is going to change that simple equation./thread, and keep this shit on /sfg/
>>16259297>>>/sci/sfg/
>>16259297Unfortunately the real life doesn't function in the same way as your shitty scifi movies. Besides we still don't have a better technology than voyagers had in terms of rocket propulsion.
In practise, we will likely send uncrewed probes with all the seeds necessary to make homo sapiens again in another world. No need to consider the weakness or needs of fleshbag beings. No need to limit ourselves so that they don't liquified upon accelerating to a significant fraction of C. Millions and millions of probes will be send to every single reachable galaxy.
>>16259580this/thread
>>16259580>this is obviously sci-fi>suspending disbelief regarding fuel costs or engineering>theoreticallyif you don't want to play, don't be here
>>16259297Lmao there are not dozens of people on the ISS. There are seven currently, and this is about average.Also it would be a death mission so no one would go.
>>16259307It's the inverse function of aether
