Pardom my abominable math skills. But I assume the speed of 2.2 miles per second may simpy be multiplied by 10 for 22 miles per second after ten hours? I get about 19,000 mps after one year.

One G is ten times that = 190,000 mps, if you set aside mass dialation. We established earlier that time dialation of 50% would only require 86% the speed of light. Assuming starship with nuclear reactor, I just wonder how much mass would be need to be carried on board to push out the back!

Theoretically, if you are generating 1G by squirting mass out the back of your ship, then your mass will decrease as you speed up, perhaps offsetting mass dialation? At 86% speed of light the starship travelor is aging one half the speed as those who sent him on his way. In effect, he observes himself traveling FASTER then the speed of light.

Setting asside one year of acceleration, the travelor would traverse about eight light years distance from us in ten years of travel, but experience only five years of aging.

Here's "Geezer's easy math" version. (Geezer can only do easy math!)

G/10 = 3.2 ft/sec/sec = 2.2 MPH per second (3.2*3600/5280=2.2 approximately!) In other words, the speed increases by 2.2 MPH every second.

2.2 MPH per second means it will accelerate to 69.3 Million MPH in one year (2.2 multiplied by the number of seconds in a year)

69.3 Million MPH is around 19,250 miles per second

In SI units:

G/10 = 0,98 m/s/s (Let's call it 1,0)

In one year, velocity = 1*3600*24*365 m/s

= 1*3,6*24*365 km/s

= 31.536 km/s

Note the "." is a thousands separator rather than a decimal point, so the SI answer seems to agree with the Imperial answer.

Accelerations are typically expressed in distance/(time)squared

e.g feet per second squared, meters per second squared etc.

This is because acceleration is the rate at which speed changes. As speed is itself a rate, 32 ft/second every second is the same as 32 ft/sec/sec

This can be expressed as 32 ft/sec x 1/sec, or 32 ft/sec^2 (32 ft/second squared)

Now, consider that you are trying to understand this and someone says "The acceleration is 32 feet per second squared". To most people, that will mean almost (pardon my language) bugger all. It's mathematically quite correct and very clever, but it does not help to convey the concept at all. In other words, it's techno babble. A form of code speak that helps to divide the "insiders" from the "outsiders".

Now, if you say something like "Every second, the speed of the body increases by 3 kilometres per hour" a lot more people will immediately be able to determine the speed of the body after one hour, or after just about any amount of time come to that.

"So what Geezer?" you might say. Well, if we want more people to get interested in science, we should de-obfuscate it as much as possible. I'm not suggesting we try to over simplify, but let's not get carried away with the brilliance of our analysis. If we do, we will probably lose the attention of a lot of people along the way.