It's not that bad. With currently known science, your fuel would most likely be hydrogen so you can run a fusion reactor.
The rocket equation tells you that most of your starship by mass would be fuel, if you want to go fast.
Of all the stuff on your ship that's not fuel, you'd probably need quite a bit of water for survival needs.
So you would make your spaceship relatively long and thin (to maximize internal volume for a given frontal area), and you would store your fuel (and water) in front of you to serve as exactly that shield.
Even if no, it would mean your shield will be gradually consumed. Not sure this is the best idea.
That's basically free shielding: you have to carry the fuel around anyway, so you might as well put it to good use. If you run a nuclear fusion reactor, you won't really lose much of the mass of your fuel, unless you want to. Eg you could use the helium you produce as the reaction mass for your ion drive. (I haven't done the numbers to see how the required mass per second for your ion drive compares to the helium mass per second a nuclear fusion reactor would spit out.)
Because it's a free shield, you don't really get to complain about your shield being gradually consumed.
Of course, you can have some extra shielding further inside. You would keep your water forward of your people, but behind your fuel. So your water would not bear the brunt.
Hydrogen doesn't really get all that radioactive: you can use chemical means to remove any helium or so you might accidentally produce; and hydrogen's isotopes are both pretty short lived and relatively easy to separate. (At least much easier than eg enriching uranium.)
Your water and food is also only a very small fraction of the overall mass of your rocket: as always, the vast majority is made up of fuel.
And you are entirely wrong about the isotopes of hydrogen. Tritium is highly radioactive, with a half life of ~12 years. And it is not just hard, but virtually impossible to isolate tritium out of water. So if any tritium forms (which is an extremely common by-product of any fusion reactions which might happen, and the most common decay product of heavier hydrogen isotopes), it will render your water quite poisonous for human consumption, virtually irrevocably.
On the contrary, it's quite easy to do if there is any significant fraction of tritium present. The proportional mass difference of ³H vs. ¹H is x3, which alters the chemistry enough to make separation easy. You can use fractional distillation or electrolysis even for ²H — even mere hobbyists involved in the DIY fusion reactor scene sometimes extract deuterium from water this way, tritium would be easier.
Depending on your fusion reactor, you might actually highly value any tritium produced, instead of seeing it as a nuisance.
> Your fuel still gets consumed, so you still can't rely on your fuel as the main form of shielding. Towards the end of your journey, your rocket is approximately 0% fuel. And at the point of highest speed, before you start decelerating, it is roughly 50% fuel.
With a nuclear engine you make a difference between fuel and propellant. When you fuse your hydrogen into helium, you still have the helium afterwards.
I haven't run the numbers to see how your fuel consumption would compare to your propellant consumption for a reasonable fusion powered rocket. Though I suspect that you also need oodles of propellant, given how the rocket equation works.
For the first part of your journey you could rely on passive shielding via your propellant. For the latter part, you could use more costly active shielding like a big magnetic field or ablative shields in front of your main rocket etc.
Basically, you would still want to use your propellant as free shielding as much as possible.
It's sort of funny, but dozens or hundreds of orders of magnitude below, the same sort of dynamics are at work in air-breathing ramjets. The impact velocity of the medium is starting to tell, and the exhaust velocity isn't particularly more energetic than what's threatening to ionize the air around your leading edges.
[1] Well, aside from the fact you're exceeding the average velocity of your exhaust mass
I'm not sure what you mean by electromagnetism being near-frozen? Doesn't electromagnetism also travel at the speed of light?
Outside galaxies you have better chances of surviving high speeds. The intergalactic medium is only 1-10 particles per cubic meter in the web of gas we call the warm–hot intergalactic medium, and possibly less outside of that.
I guess Hitchhikers guide to the galaxy building space highways destroying everything in the way could be more than a gag after all.
A cubic lightyear is about 8.468e+50 liters, and butter weighs 911 g/L, giving the mass of a cubic lightyear of butter to be 7.714348e+50, whose Schwarzchild radius is about 121,103,293 lightyears, about 100x smaller than the radius of the known universe.
... maybe it is? Hear my pet theory out.
Extrapolating backwards from the expansion of our universe, the Big Bang model posits a hyperdense state that exceeds black hole levels originating from a singularity, yet it's thought that somehow it did not collapse back, handwaving it as "physics as we know it did not apply".
But maybe physics as we know it does apply. Notably physics as we know it does not imply a specific direction for the arrow of time.
So our universe might very well be a black hole, but we have time backwards compared to the usual way we think of black holes: what we think of as the origin of time and space is what we think of as the irremediable end of time and space in a black hole.
radius of universe = 4.4 * 10^23 km (47b ly)
mass required to have schwarzschild radius of 4.4 * 10^23 km = 2.96 * 10^53 kg
Surely we are still discovering the implications of these numbers being so close.
I like your time-reversed black hole framing, thanks for that.
https://www.wolframalpha.com/input?i2d=true&i=+schwarzschild +radius+of+mass+of+the+universe
https://www.wolframalpha.com/input?i=radius+of+universe
https://www.wolframalpha.com/input?i2d=true&i=+schwarzschild +radius+of+2.96*Power%5B10%2C53%5D+kg
Before ANGRY KEYBOARD SOUNDS commence, I'm not saying we don't know what mass is, I'm saying fundamentals. I.e., why is mass. What causes it to come into being? Bulk entanglement, i.e., a function of probability or "mass as destiny"? Tiny signals? Lots of rubber sheeting? Etc.
Ok.
> a black hole, but we have time backwards compared to the usual way we think of black holes
Observations of our universe are straightforwardly understood -- and predicted -- by laying matter fields on an expanding Robertson-Walker metric. The same observations are not at all easy to understand by laying matter fields on a time-reversed Oppenheimer-Snyder-like black hole metric.
The first thing you run into is that at the largest scales (i.e., where the solid angles subtended by galaxy clusters are small for observers like us) visible matter is arranged roughly isotropically and roughly homogeneously: we detect typical spiral galaxies (and more importantly various atomic line transitions associated with them, like the <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lyman-alpha_forest>) at all sorts of redshifts.
Your homework would be to generate lightlike geodesics that can reproduce these observations at any time in a black-hole-like metric. If you can do that at for a single spacelike slice of your black hole, you then would want to work on evolving that slice using e.g. the <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Initial_value_formulation_(gen...>.
Just scratching the surface of how you would go about doing that would be an interesting research project for a layperson. Among other things, you would end up learning a lot more about what's in your second paragraph, and likely develop an idea about how much work is involved in writing down even a simple "pet theory" of physical cosomology that accords with observational data. Or at least you'd have a better idea of what observational data there is that needs to be accounted for. You'd also confront all sorts of open questions about the interiors of black holes where there is significant matter; that would be timely given the recent preprint by Roy Kerr at <https://arxiv.org/abs/2312.00841>.
The mass of ordinary matter in the universe is 2×10^53 kilograms, which would have a Schwarzchild radius of 31.39 billion light years. The explanation from popular science communicators on this topic have never satisfied me.
Your maths is correct for one cubic light year of butter. Proxima Centauri is 4.247 light years away, and that gives such a cube of water[0] a mass of 6.468×10^52 kilograms[1], which would have a Schwarzchild radius of 10.15 billion light years.
[0] At STP, which isn't realistic at all
[1] Close enough; I think it was Brian Cox who once joked that in cosmology it is standard practice to approximate π as 1.
Now, since the universe doesn't appear to be a blackhole, we assume there's an equal amount of stuff outside of it pulling it back into flatness.
The hoop conjecture doesn't apply in a small region of a very homogenous universe
Thus I would've expected the radius of the black hole to be necessarily smaller than the dimensions of the butter cube.
However, I now realize my mistake - in examples like squashing mount Everest or earth or a neutron star into a black hole, we're starting with masses that are stable/in equilibrium. This would not be the case for a cubic light year of butter!
Further, it looks like the radius is directly proportional to the mass. Given that mass grows cubic with respect to dimension, it's expected the radius of the black hole would eventually outgrow the cube of butter if made sufficiently large...
The vacuum in solar space is around 10^7 atoms per cubic metre; the vacuum of interstellar space is around 10^6 atoms per cubic metre; and the vacuum of intergalactic space is around 1 atom per cubic metre.
I’d never seen “a hundred atoms per cubic meter”, but it’s always been my intuition that, without some quite interesting shielding, you couldn’t make it anywhere near the speed of light. And on the other hand, I’ve seen claims that “space is really big” as you mentioned; but that claim has always seemed dubious.