Oops, i mean nearby stars, of course. Sorry
# 10985 | 20 years ago on Thu, Mar 17 2005 at 10:51 am |
Doitsujin
(Verified)
Commenter
Bonn
Posts: 140
Joined:
5/6/2006 |
Nearby planets? Or nearby stars?
Oops, i mean nearby stars, of course. Sorry |
# 10986 | 20 years ago on Thu, Mar 17 2005 at 2:05 pm |
Kyler
(Verified)
Frequent
Cambridge, Massachusetts
Posts: 267
Joined:
5/7/2006 |
I thought that was probably what you meant... just checking. |
# 10987 | 20 years ago on Fri, Mar 18 2005 at 7:56 am |
Wakka
(Verified)
Infrequent
Baker City, Oregon
Posts: 78
Joined:
5/9/2006 |
The biggest problem with terraforming planets around other stars is that the nearest star to ours is still 4.2 light years away. Traveling that distance within anyone's lifetime (either manned or unmanned) is going to be tough with the current laws of physics |
# 10988 | 20 years ago on Sat, Mar 19 2005 at 10:14 am |
Doitsujin
(Verified)
Commenter
Bonn
Posts: 140
Joined:
5/6/2006 |
Well, travel times are a problem indeed. And even if you assume resasonably high speeds of 0.1 to 0.2c, it will still take decades or centuries, depending on your target. Furthermore, the next star system is Alpha Centauri, a trinary star system, hence no good place for planets to form. Thus, stars with habitable/terraformable planets will be further away.
The work-around wound be either 'freezing' the crew (which would probably be risky), or vastly increasing the lifespan of the crew (which would be risky as well due to psychological factors). |
Users: | 0 |
Guests: | 85 |
Nitrocosm | 2 weeks ago |
ZOL | 2 months ago |
Wolfwood29 | 2 months ago |
lam | 2 months ago |
Jovian | 2 months ago |