Space Exploration Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for spacecraft operators, scientists, engineers, and enthusiasts. Join them; it only takes a minute:

Sign up
Here's how it works:
  1. Anybody can ask a question
  2. Anybody can answer
  3. The best answers are voted up and rise to the top

Scott Kelly just returned from nearly a year of orbiting the Earth in the space station. How much younger is he than his twin, now that he has spent a significant amount of time, traveling at high speeds?

share|improve this question
    
Nice question, thanks. +1 for "a significant amount of time traveling" ;) – hiergiltdiestfu Mar 3 at 9:30
    
Do you know the exact time difference between him and his twin on the scale where we could add / remove the time dilation? Cause I would assume that the difference in time is like maybe 1 or 2 seconds. this probably won't change anything on the fact the first born twin keeps staying older :P – Zaibis Mar 3 at 11:26
    
Also wasn't his twin brother in space aswell? – Zaibis Mar 3 at 11:28
    
Not much younger, but temporarily two inches taller. – Jerard Puckett Mar 3 at 13:21
up vote 19 down vote accepted

Neil DeGrasse Tyson says that Scott Kelly is now 1/100 second younger than he would have been otherwise, which almost certainly isn't enough to alter the birth order of the two; I don't know which of the two was born first.

share|improve this answer
4  
Yes, i'd say bearing a second child 1/100th of a second after the first almost certainly can't be done without significant risk to the baby. – kim holder Mar 2 at 17:35
13  
You say things like that and some people are just going to take it as a challenge. – Russell Borogove Mar 2 at 17:35
2  
Scott is most likely considerably older physiologically than is his brother. A year in space takes a significant toll. Understanding that is a big part of the reason for this twin study. – David Hammen Mar 2 at 18:52
7  
@kimholder Assuming an average length of 20 inches, the first baby would have to be delivered at around 183 kilometers per hour (or 114 miles per hour) to be only 1/100th of a second older. – Nathan K Mar 2 at 21:49
9  
That's assuming a spherical baby of uniform density, right? – Russell Borogove Mar 2 at 23:38

Your Answer

 
discard

By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.