QI | When Is The Best Time For Interstellar Travel? 

Time is an illusion. Lunch time, doubly so.

> No jam at tea time Why even live

Nah, 3pm's the school rush.

I've found that the best time to do anything is tomorrow..

Agreed about Holly and Susan. My dad used to talk about how he always believed that everything Robert Heinlein put in his books, especially things like men wearing earrings and some of the other fashion and social details, could never possibly be true. He was amazed how much of it came true in time.

Proof of their compatibility ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-f9gzhz4hS7s.html

Space is big. You just won't believe how vastly, hugely, mind-bogglingly big it is. I mean, you may think it's a long way down the road to the chemist's, but that's just peanuts to space.

*CUNNINGLY* , very, very cunningly, this recording has been adjusted to remind us all that 'In Space, no one can hear you .... Well, hear anything really'. Probably because its a long way away and they're wearing space helmets too. Funily enough, no one ever seemed to generate an immortal line like 'In space no one needs a vacuum cleaner, just a door handle. Sorted'.

the incest is wincest solution

Generation ships are unethical though. You're forcing an entire generation of people to be born and die on a space ship AND they'll likely be forced to conceive children.

@Chase Williams Pandorum. Great flick.

@@Liwet. That's just life. It's what humans have done for as long as humans have bern humaning. How do you think all of Polynesia happened? Humans who live on generation ships are no different than generations who have lived in massive urban areas.

Knowing my luck I'd be on that ship as the only male and all the females still wouldn't sleep with me to continue the mission 😂

You mean de-Preston

Yeah, Holly is brilliant in this bit

It wouldn't be cheap, but we can still totally experiment with it. Use conventional rockets to send a vessel into space, then do the nuking at a safe distance.

Impossible Star Trek Wars

Stingray.

Mary, Mungo and Midge ?

@@captainboots next season on Taskmaster!

@@narrativium Anything can happen in the next half hour!

No one is ignoring that because they're comparing _relative_ travel times. *Of course they already know* that there is a delta-V to be compensated for - that shit has been known about since they've been going between different bodies right here in our solar system. Same shit, different pile.

This literally isnt a problem The moon is moving, and we landed on the moon. The destination is always where the object will be when you arrive. They didnt just launch a rocket at the moon and be like damn we missed what do we do Technology advancing quicker than you are is very much the deciding factor

Nothing moves closer. We are all moving away from each other planet/ stars

@@fatherofdragons4880 Eh no. You're thinking of the expansion of the universe and that only matters for the spaces between galaxies. Although there are some who are moving towards each other, like the Andromeda galaxy towards us. Eventually there will be one galaxy called Milkdromeda.

@@joyl7842 I prefer Andy Way

That doesn't mean much - it's also been ages since the last person on the moon, simply because there isn't really much point to do it. Also, the US likes to spend all their money on decades long wars to destabilize our own planet, so they don't have the money for anything remotely scientific that has a purpose other than murdering people.

@@DrZaius3141 Not that I don't agree with the whole wasteful wars comment but is there anything purposeful to be gained about space exploration other than 'Ooh that's rather cool, look at that.'

@@BioYuGi Scientific knowledge. In the very long run access to vast resources, even though at this time it's far from economical.

It depends what you mean by "best" though: if 'best' is "how to we get them as fast as possible" then, sure. 'Best' could have been "how to get probes to be able to fly past/orbit and examine as many solar system objects and for as long as possible"

Not really-the slingshots that made the "Grand Tour" spaceflights didn't add enough velocity to make a significant difference in interstellar travel. They added some, but the big advantage was that you could use the slingshots to change your direction for very little fuel. You really need to get going a substantial percentage of _c_ to make a real difference in the time. Voyager 1 is going about 1/17,000th the speed of light, or 0.00005c. Go 10,000 times faster, and you're still looking at 8+ years to get to Alpha Centauri. The advantage is that at half the speed of light, it knocks about 14 months off of how much you'd age in the interim.

Yes - since speeding up and slowing down are the same thing in space, just in opposite directions..... it's not practical.

Could drop off an upgrade package though.

@@g33xzi11a The upgrade package still has to slow down, which requires fuel. Maybe not as much fuel as slowing down the whole second ship, but that's still fuel (and the upgrade package) that has to be carried to the older ship, plus the fuel to carry the fuel and the upgrade package, and the fuel to carry _THAT_ fuel (etc.) Or I suppose the upgrade package could just be sent out to smash into the first ship. No deceleration required :-P

@@John_Smith_60 yes. The original ship is designed to intercept an ultra fast package.

Although Dr Who's explanation that time consists of 'wibbly-wobbly' bits is probably more accurate!

You can go slower and not get 'dilated' and it will take you more subjective years. You can go faster, and get dilated and take less subjective years but you will still end up further in the future. In a sense, it will still not be possible to get any great distances without also ending up far off in time.

@Betatroll Jeeesus H.

It is basically a big wind tunnel.

Or Heinlein's book "Time for the Stars", although that book is focused more on time-dilation and the need for communication. (In the book, telepathy exists and is instantaneous.)

So to sum up....Forget trying to escape....enjoy what you can...while you can. x

@@jeremyripton Looks around. Starts building rocket.

I'm not sure 'attraction' is the proper basis of procreation on this imaginary spacecraft.

Inherent intelligence is genetic, actual intelligence will be determined by a number of factors such as education and mentorship. By selecting sufficiently intelligent people to procreate, there is a high chance the offspring will have the same potential, and especially given the closed environment, it is likely that they will continue on with the mission. Even here on earth, how many examples are there where the children have taken after their parents professions and continued the legacy?

@@maxnaz47 true, but there still remains the unknown quantity that IS procreation, gestation, growth and birth in a zero gravity environment. If the gestating foetus has no sense of 'up while in the womb, how will it know to point the head 'down' when it comes closer to baby day?

but i can see them, theyre just there hahaha

@@aussieintexas61 but..... our sun is a star and according to QI it's not there.

@@MichaelCoombes776 an dont mention the moon......how many hahhaahha

@@MichaelCoombes776 _Miraaage..._

Our sun is the closest to us and that's 92,000,000 miles away.

We got there yesterday or tomorrow

@@hillaryclinton2415 Will you come back last year?

Depends on your destination.

For any growth rate, there will be some time to launch that will reach the destination the earliest (supposing humans ever reach another star at all, which is a tall order). Think about it this way. We are supposing we eventually reach another star, but we can't do that yet, so there must be a time in the future when such a thing first becomes possible. Suppose we launch a ship every year after that time, with each incorporating the latest technological advancements with the goal of reaching another star as soon as possible. Since we are supposing we eventually do get there, one ship must be the one that gets there first. We will then know in retrospect that that ship launched at the optimal time. We might not know what that optimal time is in advance, but in principle, we could try to predict it. Models that attempt this are called wait calculations.

That's what the equation is attempting to calculate. There's a maximum distance that a ship we launched now could reach in the time it would take us to develop an improved ship and send it to the same destination, calculated by putting reasonable estimates of the rate at which the top speed we can achieve will increase and other variables into the equation. That distance is currently around 20 billion miles. Assuming, just to keep the maths simple, that a current spaceship could do 1 billion miles/year, then it would take 20 years to reach a destination 20 billion miles away. A ship that could do twice that speed would have to be launched less than 10 years after the first ship in order to catch it before the first ship reached its destination. If the equation predicts that we won't have a second ship capable of twice the speed in 10 years or less then we should send the first ship now; otherwise we should wait and send the second ship. With a destination 40 billion miles away, it's only worth launching now if the equation predicts it will be more than 20 years until we have a ship capable of twice the speed.

@@EebstertheGreat There's the old hockey saying by Wayne Gretzky, "You miss 100% of the shots you don't take." In other words, if you never try you'll never make it.

......But by then property-prices would've risen so much to be unaffordable!

That reminds of a Stargate SG-1 episode "Scorched earth" Where an advanced ship arrives at a planet and starts reforming it to suit the needs of the civilisation that built the ship. The ship itself was controlled by an AI and had everything on board to recreate their race (from genetic database) that had perished on their home planet.

If we could build a craft capable of catching up to the voyager, we wouldn't waste resources in then trying to slow down, we would let it sail right on past and become the new probe, with new sensors, with better power and greater transmission rates.

You're not slacking, you're just waiting for the optimal time to start your Outdoor Clothes mission.

I’ve been to a recording for a Christmas episode of 8 Out Of 10 Cats.. that was filmed in JANUARY. So yeah, 7 months isn’t impossible!

I don't think so. The last episode of TNG (24th century) was Stardate 47988.

All Stardates are accurate at the time of recording

Gagh? Mmm, now you're making me hungry.

@@_Mentat Pining for the gagh momma didn't cook?

That’s true. Though the first missions would probably not have human operations on the surface. Perhaps a couple of flybys and then return home.

"That's the one where the Ewoks live!"

I want to know too - There are a couple of points where it sounds like Patrick Stewart. But I doubt QI has the budget for that.

A bit of Josh Widdicombe.

@@decodolly1535 it really does. He may have done it for fun. How long could it take?

But then you waste fuel having your headlights on...

The "why" you mention is paramount. You're asking the question that few bother to. As far as resources go, it would be easier to build both orbital space habitats and livable areas on our moon / other moons / Mars than it would be to hie off to another world light-years away. And there is a *_lot_* of building material in our solar system with which to make orbital habitats.

@@AlbertaGeekEasier, perhaps, but resource-wise we'd be hitting a brick wall. The main point of interstellar travel as a concept is for humans to be able to colonise another earth-like planet, which doesn't require immense life support structures.

@@MrJoeyWheeler Oh, of course. I'm not saying that we _never_ go interstellar, just that it needn't be rushed in to (relatively speaking) given the available _lebensraum_ humanity can make for itself here in the "local neighbourhood", so to speak. _"another earth-like planet, which doesn't require immense life support structures"_ Aye, there's the rub. "Earth-*_like"_* is still not "Earth". And while Humans can adapt quite well to many a different Earth-like environment, the thing about alien environments is that they're *_alien._* We're talking about life processes that, down to the chemical level, may have taken an evolutionary trajectory that, while superficially similar, like a sufficiently-oxygenated atmosphere, might well have enough differences to require no less life support structures than would a completely baseline-Earth space habitat. An example that comes to mind is the "handedness" of amino acids. There is no reason why the life on another planet could not be dominated by those with a different one than our own. So while we'd be able to breathe the air, the land itself would never support Earth crops without massively invasive Terraforming efforts.

That isn't a "sin".

Why doesn't your inner nerd just enjoy the juxtaposition. No-one is saying they're the same thing.

You've got that whole.premise completely wrong and out of context..no-one went there...the story starts..."In a galaxy far, far away

@@jeremyripton so you did not watch the video? In the video it’s “to boldly go to a galaxy far, far away”.

They're closer, but still literally an astronomical distance away.

One reason to go to other galaxies, and as soon as possible, is because eventually they will be invisible to any observers on earth (or any other star in our galaxy). There's plenty of time to, then, only explore our own galaxy, once it's the only thing we can see.

@@telectronix1368 Our galactic cluster will remain visible. Andromeda, the Magellanic Clouds, and the rest of the local cluster of galaxies is staying together.

That's silly. You'd go at night because its *cooler*

Fun fact: before the invention of accurate, mobile timekeeping devices British naval ships used to use the progression of jupiter's moons to guage time. (I'm assuming they used telescopes)

@@telectronix1368 Close. It was Danish astronomer Ole Rømer (working in Paris), who was testing Galileo's idea to use Jupiter's moon Io as a universe clock (so ships could determine their longitude position). While creating his charts, he noticed a time shift in the moon's orbit which he was able to correlate to the changing distances between Jupiter and Earth based on their respective positions in their orbits. Io's expected position lagged behind as they got further apart, and was early as they got closer together. He correctly concluded light had a finite speed, and the time shift he measured was related to the variable distance the light had to travel to make his observations throughout the year. He was also the first to make a reasonably good calculation for the speed of light, especially considering the tools and technology of the time he had to work with. From what I can find, this technique was popular for a short time with land surveyors (who could work from a fixed position). But it proved to be too difficult to implement at sea. If it was used by sailors, I'm unaware / couldn't find a source.

@@SlavaPunta "Close. .....if it was used I'm unaware" Well.......there you go, then?

colonizing a new planet sounds far from paradise but yeah it's a cool concept

That's sensible but the question was not interplanetary.

Susan Calman

Good thinking. When the Sun's out it can get really hot. And as off-peak electric is cheaper at night that's the best strategy - Go at night. Be cool.

Depends how long humans survive for. If we die out within the next few thousand years. But say humans get their act together and live on for another few hundred thousand years then maybe. Alas none of us will ever know.

I mean if you went back 500 years the very idea of being able to traverse the entire planet in less than a day would seem impossible. If humanity doesn't destroy itself I can see there being colonies elsewhere in the solar system within 200 years. Interstellar might take another 200 years after that but at least the idea is out there.

@@jono_cc2258 This is all presuming the very dumb idea that because we've seen great scientific progress in certain areas at breakneck speeds we'll keep seeing them at the same pace. This has never been true small scale, and just because it has large-scale (steam engines to motor engines within a few centuries) we have no reason to think it'd extent to *viable, inhabited interstellar travel*

"The girl"? Perhaps you could use her name.

@@decodolly1535 Susan Calman

It's also practically near impossible.

Time dilation would help - With the nearest 'Golidlocks zone' planet circa 10 to 12 light years away innit? But as Logitech indicated. To meat the energy requiremnt to accelerate a table tennis ball to lightspeed, you're probably wanting to convert the moon's mass to energy.

@@logitech4873 Too bllody right - The level of Scientific knowledge here is comedic in its own right.

Why is that undesirable? Time passed 'more slowly' for the party travelling so they arrive younger. Assuming any of this were possible

@Betatroll Sure. BUT ..... The subjective time the crew experience the journey as taking is hugely reduced by comparison with the time an external observer views their journey as taking.

Earth First! [We''ll strip-mine the Planets later, you mean?]

You think rich, men will stop having their "but what do I do now" existential crises and stop with their peeing contest?

I think they were trolling Sandi. It was in this episode that they started singing Joseph Amazing Technicolor Dream Coat, the audience joined in and Sandi, Joe and Alan walked off set. you can find that clip on RU-vid as well - it was hysterical :D

The human females appear to be using humour, captain. Illogical... but fascinating.

Humour, its OK if you don't mind laughing.

No, you will leave eventually. Eventually, technology will become good enough that we can get to the star fast enough that it's unlikely that any later technology improvements would get us there sooner. For example, if we could travel to the star in 10 years, we could say "Well, in the next five years, we're not going to improve that to better than 5 years, and we're certainly not going to get it to less than a one-year voyage with nine years' research", so we should set off.

It's the "as long as someone else fixes the problem" approach.

@@telectronix1368 No it's not. Suppose you're trying to get across the United States, you're in New York and you have a horse. Would you set off on your horse if you felt you had a reasonable chance of being able to buy a car some time in the next month? No: because waiting until the better solution is ready will get you to your destination faster.

@@beeble2003 Yes it is. Not leaving now 'because someone else will come up with a faster method of travel later' only works if, eventually, someone else does fix the problem.

@@telectronix1368 You seem to be talking as if this is some kind of laziness. It's not: it's about waiting until we have a proper solution to the problem before setting off on some half-cocked attempt. We're talking about an absolutely gigantic undertaking, here. If you want to get, I don't know, ten people to a star and it's going to take 50 years, you're going to need a crew of at least 15 because a good fraction of your crew will die in 50 years. And every person you send needs 50 years of food. If that can be reduced to a 40- or 30-year mission, the odds of success increase massively.

Ooh, do tell! I bet you’re one of those people who believe that space doesn’t exist.

Because we want to aim for the nearest one, of course.

@@logitech4873 And we have to hope there is a habitable planet to use when we get there. The whole idea is nonsense.

@@JohnyG29 That really isn't necessary.

Not at all. The trick is to think like Bus Companies. Make folk wait for eons then send at least three together. That way by the time they arrive the aliens will have got fed up with waiting and all three will get through.