.

[fabituz]

Oh sure, Mars is far more plausible. We definitely know enough science and engineering and the technology either exists or could be invented quickly. The only thing really lacking is political will and the money that comes with it. But sending a man to mars isn't a game changer that means "you win". It feels too easy to be the end goal.

Ask this for us brazilians. We are still struggling to launch a rocket to space.

 

[KrikkitTwo]

actually mars could be even more difficult to colonize. If the alfa centauri planet is like earth, we would merely have to build a spaceship to go there. of course it would be difficult to build and a long traveling time, but upon arrival, the planet would be fully accessible.
The issue with mars is that colonizing the hole damm planet either means building large biospheres wherein we could live, have stable mini eco systems, or trying to breath life into the whole planet, both requiring technology and transport of a huge amount of resources, which we don't currently are capable of.

Honestly, ignoring the engine technology that would be needed (which would be the biggest expense) reaching an exact Earth duplicate planet near Alpha Centauri would still be much, much harder than a colony on mars.

Because of the travel time, establishing a colony on Proxima Centauri B means creating a self-sustaining colony in deep space (ie must last for probably a couple centuries.. for it to do that it basically has to be self-sustaining)

For a colony on Mars to last a few centuries is a whole lot easier because you have lots and lots of materials* right there (also you don't need to maintain some incredibly powerful engines for a few centuries so they can slow you down.)


*including solar energy which would not be available for an interstellar ship

 

[KrikkitTwo]

I dont think it would take centuries to reach alpha centauri. There's a recent proposal to send probes weighing a gram in a few decades. Obviously the scaling to colony size is difficult, but a stellar neighbour isn't quite far enough for relativity to be a killer.

If you assemble the ship(s) in space (probably a necessity) and resurrect project orion, you could get there in a few days.

probes weighing a few grams are Drastically different from something carrying a self-sustaining colony


There is no way you are getting to Alpha Centauri in a few days without FTL (I'm guessing you meant decades)

and a few decades is honestly still a "self -sustaining colony" 'Biosphere 2' didn't even make it 1 year if I recall?

 

[Acken]

The argument is that the game needs an additional era of techonologies to make interstellar travel fit.
In civ5 the ship is at the same level as the internet and fusion technology. We will need a lot more advancement than that to go there in a reasonable time. Especially before the end of the game in 2050.

 

[SupremacyKing2]

If you assemble the ship(s) in space (probably a necessity) and resurrect project orion, you could get there in a few days.

You meant 'decades', not 'days', right? Getting to AC in a few days (earth's reference frame) would mean going hundreds of times faster than light. Even in the space ship's reference frame, taking into account relativity, would mean traveling at like 90% the speed of light, which we've never been able to do.

 

[KrikkitTwo]

My bad, terrible typo. I meant years, not days or decades.

This is based on the "most comfortable" way of travelling. That is, a ship that accelerates at a constant 1g for half the journey (thereby creating artificial gravity). Halfway there, you turn around and use the same engines to slow yourself down at a constant 1g so you arrive at your destination slowly.

Simple (but relativistically correct) calculations say that such a journey would take 3.5 years.

Accellerating at 1g for 3.5 years would require massive amounts of fuel, even using something as efficient as fusion. (the fuel would be ~ 1 million times the mass of the colony... fine if its a nanoprobe, not fine if you have ~1000 people and the facilities to care for them for a few years)

Honestly if we started receiving radio communication from a human like civilization on Proxima centauri B, inviting us to colonize.... Colonies on Mars would Still be a better idea than trying to set up a colony there (although it would be a good idea to send some of those nano probes)

[until we worked out FTL/better than fusion efficient engines or reliable generation ships]

 

[SammyKhalifa]

My bad, terrible typo. I meant years, not days or decades.

This is based on the "most comfortable" way of travelling. That is, a ship that accelerates at a constant 1g for half the journey (thereby creating artificial gravity). Halfway there, you turn around and use the same engines to slow yourself down at a constant 1g so you arrive at your destination slowly.

Simple (but relativistically correct) calculations say that such a journey would take 3.5 years.

Hopefully by then we'll have the magic technology that will keep all the people inside from getting roasted by radiation by the time they get there!

 

[GeoModder]

And frankly, radiation in the interstellar medium just isn't a problem. It's only when close to a star that you have to worry about it.

Or increasing your velocity to levels where you cross interstellar distances in years instead of decades/centuries. Without a magnetic field of its own a spaceship's inhabitants would receive lethal radiation doses quickly enough. Intensity increases the closer you get to lightspeed.

 

[KrikkitTwo]

Explanation or source for that?

It's true classically that as you move quickly you "sweep through" more stuff. But relativistically that isn't true, photons and highly energetic particles are still moving wrt you at the speed of light. So I don't see how the intensity could change.
I Also dont think you'd be moving quickly enough for the doppler shifting to be so important. I calculated a max doppler shift of a factor 6, meaning that the total energy from radiation is (once you average out over all directions) about 3 times higher than being stationary. And that's at the max speed, the average for the whole journey would be much less than 2.

And twice a small amount is still a small amount.

(tl;dr relativistically it IS true, and relativity makes it even worse)
Red shift... If I am moving away from a star it looks redder because the light (still at speed of light)has less frequency...
If I move away fast enough its shifted down to the low EM levels.....
If I move Towards a star, the light shifts from red to blue to UV to Xray to cosmic ray

(if you are driving fast enough a red stop light will look green... if you drive even faster it will give you an Xray)

That's also why you can't just average

1 watt of white light energy from the front +1 from the back = 2 watts of white light energy (basically harmless)

1/6 watt of low EM radiation from the back + 6 watts of high X rays from the fron = 6 1/6 watts of energy (but 6 watts of that is X ray level, far more harmful/harder to shield than 6 watts of white light)

 

[Sufyan]

EDIT: Missed an integration constant in my maths, changed 3.5 years to 5.5 years

Well, 3.6 years is roughly correct for the ship reference frame. 5.5 years applies to an earthbound observer.

Either way, constant acceleration interstellar travel is complete science fiction for the timeframe of a Civilization science victory. A Mars station is simply less far-fetched.

 

[Wolle68]

My bad, terrible typo. I meant years, not days or decades.

This is based on the "most comfortable" way of travelling. That is, a ship that accelerates at a constant 1g for half the journey (thereby creating artificial gravity). Halfway there, you turn around and use the same engines to slow yourself down at a constant 1g so you arrive at your destination slowly.

Simple (but relativistically correct) calculations say that such a journey would take 5.5 years.

A ship accelerating at a constant 1g would reach the speed of light in about a year.

Realistically, reaching a system 4 light years away, will have to take at least some decades.

 

[GeoModder]

Eitherway, considering how much less radiation there is in interstellar space, I simply dont see it being a problem. On a trip to alpha proxima, by far the biggest danger from radiation will be in leaving earth but before passing the orbit of Jupiter.

Even if there is less radiation in the interstellar medium (I highly doubt that), you're passing along every single particle on your course at a significantly higher fraction of lightspeed. Its simply false to think radiation will 'move along' with you. It comes from lots of sources, distributed all over the 'sky'. It will cross the course of a starship from lots of angles, and at a high velocity. It will not only harm unprotected crew, but even deteriorate the ship itself if the destination star is far enough. But the latter shouldn't be a problem for a 'short hop' to Proxima Centauri.

 

[Sufyan]

A ship accelerating at a constant 1g would reach the speed of light in about a year.

It would never reach it. However fast it gets, light speed would always be a full 300000 km/s faster. That's the main point of special relativity. But it would reach Alpha Centauri in about 3.5 years of the astronauts' lives (or 5.8 years of our lives on Earth).

But again, constant acceleration interstellar travel is complete science fiction for the timeframe of a Civilization science victory. A Mars station is simply less far-fetched.

 

[Wolle68]

It would never reach it. However fast it gets, light speed would always be a full 300000 km/s faster. That's the main point of special relativity. But it would reach Alpha Centauri in about 3.5 years of the astronauts' lives (or 5.8 years of our lives on Earth).

I was assuming an Earth (or Solar System) observer, since he didn't specify. A spaceship cannot keep accelerating 1g for a year because it would reach the speed of light as seen from an outside observer (infinite energy and all that).

I may have misunderstood the model, but I'm highly skeptical of any travel that's 2/3 of the speed of light on average (to say the least).

 

[Zaarin]

The science victory in civ was traditionally about going to alpha centauri, and I think in Civ6 it's about going to Mars.

They should make it be about going to Proxima Centauri-b
For those curious, Proxima Centauri is the smallest of the three stars that make up the Alpha Centauri system, and is the closest to us.

*may make up the α Centauri system. It has not been confirmed that Proxima Centauri is gravitationally bound to α Centauri A+B, though it's considered probable.

ETA: Also, to the person who suggested there is less radiation outside the Solar System, I present to you Exhibit A.

 

[Miravlix]

Science victory should be AI based, because AI would make any form of government obsolete (Or simply kill of humanity as we waste resources the AI could use better).

The other star system does seem more epic as a winning condition and science does seem to have made it a lot less scifi already, with the invention of 20% of light travel.

Anyone want to take a bet on whatever the game is bug free before or after we visit Mars? :>

 

[dagriggstar]

I'd actually go the other way and have completing the Apollo Program as the space race victory. Instead of researching tech's then building the parts, I'd have you research techs (On their own tree that aren't useful for anything else) then when you get the end one you win. Creates a situation where you'll be more vulnerable to attack if going space victory (as you won't be researching anything to upgrade your military) and it's far enough back in history that you don't need to invent like some future era or whatever.

Fundamentally, whatever science victory is, it's not going to be realistic anyway...

 

[Siptah]

The official Civ account on Facebook found the discovery of Proxima b to be interesting enough to share a video about it and titled "Science Victory?".

 

[Sufyan]

Science victory should be AI based, because AI would (...) simply kill of humanity as we waste resources the AI could use better.

And that would be a victory for civilization?

seem to have made it a lot less scifi already, with the invention of 20% of light travel.

You talk about Breakthrough Starshot I suppose? That is only in the feasability research stage, and even if we can do it (I hope so) the StarChips would only weigh a few grams. There is no practical analogy to manned interstellar travel.

 

[isau]

I think it would be cool if the Science victory actually involved building a Settler to put on that rocket and when you sent them off to the other planet, there was a second map. The goal wouldn't just be to settle there, but to establish a city of certain size or colonize a % of the tiles. That way if two or three players all landed on a foreign planet, there would be a final competition for winning, and maybe even some weapons you could fire from Earth to try to stop the Mars colony.