> Is even near (but slower than) light travel possible?
Sure; send yourself as data. ;) Just don't use comcast.
On a less flippant note, in addition to the interstellar dust issue, another fun engineering problem is providing the energy necessary. If you want to send a 50 kilogram person to .99c, you'll have to provide about 4 months worth of the United States current energy production (7 quadrillion btu per month or about 7 exajoules)[1].
Now, if you are wiling to increase your flight time by a factor of ten (reducing yourself to .1 c), you can cut this down to merely 15 days worth of California's total consumption[2]. Mind you, that's just the poor 50 kilogram astronaut. The space shuttle weighed in at 75,000 kilograms (empty). So plan on using about 9 months of the United States energy production capacity for your dinky .1 c.
Given that you'll probably want to STOP once you get where you're going, antimatter engines are probably a prerequisite for relativistic space travel.
Sure; send yourself as data. ;) Just don't use comcast.
On a less flippant note, in addition to the interstellar dust issue, another fun engineering problem is providing the energy necessary. If you want to send a 50 kilogram person to .99c, you'll have to provide about 4 months worth of the United States current energy production (7 quadrillion btu per month or about 7 exajoules)[1].
Now, if you are wiling to increase your flight time by a factor of ten (reducing yourself to .1 c), you can cut this down to merely 15 days worth of California's total consumption[2]. Mind you, that's just the poor 50 kilogram astronaut. The space shuttle weighed in at 75,000 kilograms (empty). So plan on using about 9 months of the United States energy production capacity for your dinky .1 c.
Given that you'll probably want to STOP once you get where you're going, antimatter engines are probably a prerequisite for relativistic space travel.
[1] http://www.eia.gov/totalenergy/
[2] http://www.ecdms.energy.ca.gov/elecbycounty.aspx