Summations Only

Even if we develop nuclear powered engines, which Russia and the US are looking into again, we still have psychical limitations to take into account. What kind of acceleration could be maintained? Anything over 22Mph(35kph), which produces the stress forces of 1g, seems impractical. The human body wouldn't like a 2g environment for an extended period. These same limitations also apply to slowing down. This seems like a rather large problem to overcome even if we are capable of reaching high speeds. If we could achieve .5c how long would it take to get there with the physical limits of the human body. Reaching Mars will be a monumental step, but that's all it will be til we have the technology to build self-sustaining outpost that requires no Earth resources.I think this planet, if left unchecked as it is now, will be in a bad way long before we have the technology to colonize the moon or mars. If we do not become better stewards of our own world then this will probably be the only one we ever inhabit. As has been said many times in this thread, Earth cannot support un-cheked growth but for so long. we are at the point now that we can no longer ignore this simple fact. A 1 acre garden wont support but so many people, the earth is no different. The population has doubled in my lifetime if I read the figures presented earlier. These are facts that can not be ignored. Going to the stars is currently the stuff of sci-fi, not an answer to our problems we currently face.Thanks for the graph I stole from your post Frako. Edited by fearandloathing, : Added source and fixed a error in speed.Edited by fearandloathing, : No reason given.

Of course the acceleration is the problem, that was my point. Once you achieve top speed you would be in free-fall til it was time to slow. My point was that in order to reach speeds necessary to achieve anything but a one way trip, out of our solar-system, would take a long time, around 5 months, at 1g equivalent rate of acceleration, to get to .5c. That is a long time, lots of fuel ect... Reaching that speed faster would be beyond what would be good for the human body.I should have been more clear, I was just thinking primarily about problems of going to the stars.Edited by fearandloathing, : No reason given.

Thanks, I done it in my head real fast and rounded it off to 5 months in my last post, closer to 6 though.

I am not exactly sure what you mean? But we do have physical limitations, I you were to be accelerated at a speed that = 10g's for an hour it would kill you.If you meant that in time we might be able to develop some type of inertial damping technology that would allow us to accelerate faster.... one day maybe we might be able to do this....Sorry but the rest of your post just confuses me.

Applies to what?If your going to answer a question it helps to know what the question was that you are answering. I know you know how to quote.

You only need 31 doubles for a month, seems the answer lies in your own list. Wow You seem to confuse even yourself.

This has nothing to do with my question. It does not answer why you say... Applies to what?

LOL... Happens to the best of us.

We as humans can still put men in orbit. sorry, just being picky.

Your use of relativity is rather confusing. sorry

I stand corrected, I forgot they lost a cargo mission that uses the same booster for manned flight.AbE... I don't think their other loss was the same booster they use for manned flight...I could be wrong. Edited by fearandloathing, : No reason given.

I was right after all... China could still put men in orbit.