this post was submitted on 01 Feb 2026
749 points (97.5% liked)

Science Memes

18524 readers
1664 users here now

Welcome to c/science_memes @ Mander.xyz!

A place for majestic STEMLORD peacocking, as well as memes about the realities of working in a lab.



Rules

  1. Don't throw mud. Behave like an intellectual and remember the human.
  2. Keep it rooted (on topic).
  3. No spam.
  4. Infographics welcome, get schooled.

This is a science community. We use the Dawkins definition of meme.



Research Committee

Other Mander Communities

Science and Research

Biology and Life Sciences

Physical Sciences

Humanities and Social Sciences

Practical and Applied Sciences

Memes

Miscellaneous

founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Valmond@lemmy.dbzer0.com 32 points 20 hours ago (5 children)

How can it take 151 years to go 150 light years when not close to lightspeed most of the time? I get the 9 year thing, but 151 years seems wrong.

[–] ExLisper@lemmy.curiana.net 55 points 20 hours ago (3 children)

Smarter people than me on the internet calculate that at constant 1g you only need 2.5 years to get very close to speed of light. So I guess you accelerate fast enough and reach 'almost speed of light' very early in your travel and total time is almost as if you traveled at speed of light the whole time.

[–] Tiresia@slrpnk.net 15 points 14 hours ago (1 children)

The main advantage of keeping accelerating when you're at >90% of the speed of light is that it means you arrive faster in subjective time. You could take 160 years to get there and use ten times less fuel (or thereabouts), but the subjective travel time would go up by decades.

[–] ExLisper@lemmy.curiana.net 5 points 6 hours ago

I think having constant gravity on the ship during the entire flight is also a big plus. Designing a ship where you can live in 0g for years and in 1g for years would be like designing two ships in one.

[–] trolololol@lemmy.world 5 points 17 hours ago

Not that smarter when they forget you're running out of gas by the Oort cloud. Gotta spread ~~christianism~~ capitalism there and build a petrol station before we go further.

[–] Grandwolf319@sh.itjust.works 4 points 16 hours ago

Earth’s gravity being what it is a blessing cause it means we can do interstellar travel faster.

[–] Grail@multiverse.soulism.net 27 points 20 hours ago

The closer you get to lightspeed, the slower you accelerate (from an outside perspective). It's actually close to lightspeed for most of the time.

[–] domdanial@reddthat.com 16 points 20 hours ago

I just used the calc, it's closer to 152 years. Which I assume means acceleration at 1g for about a year to reach .999c, and deceleration for the same time.

I just confirmed with dV= a*t, a year of 1g(9.8m/s/s) gets you just over the speed of light. I think it's more complicated than that, If I remember right relativistic speeds require more and more energy to accelerate so you can't ever "reach" light speed.

[–] degenerate_neutron_matter@fedia.io 13 points 20 hours ago

Most of the journey is spent traveling very close to light speed. It's not a linear ramping up and ramping down of speed, since it takes more energy to accelerate the closer you get to light speed. Rather you quickly accelerate to near light speed and spend most of the trip working on that last small bit of velocity.

[–] skulblaka@sh.itjust.works 4 points 20 hours ago

Constant acceleration at 9.8m/s^2 in a given direction will bring you close to the speed of light eventually, but yeah, I'm also not super sure how this math checks out