If you're capable of exerting that level of acceleration anyway, it would make more sense to spend 3 years accelerating and then then 22 year decelerating. You'd have less mass for the weaker engine to work with that way.
Is an interstellar probe possible now?
- Thread starter Forbin
- Start date
If you're capable of exerting that level of acceleration anyway, it would make more sense to spend 3 years accelerating and then then 22 year decelerating. You'd have less mass for the weaker engine to work with that way.
Well the two things are inextricably linked. We undoubtedly have the educational and scientific infrastructure that if the moral and cost factors disappeared within 20 years (lets say) we could have an extremely active space program utilising technology far in advance of what we have now.
BUT - the idea that technology advances in a vacuum is a bit dangerous don't you think? It is largely because of war and greed in the 20th century that technologically we have come so far so fast.
Rocket technology was largely developed for military purposes, the space program in the 60s was partly about the USA proving it could drop nukes on Moscow, and international pride. Satellite technology has been rapidly developed because of the military and commercial uses it can be put to.
I just dont think you can see the technology in isolation. We cant build a probe to a distant system now because we have not developed the technology in that way, and in that direction. However as in all things if the right motivation came along then the technology would probably follow more quickly than anyone might predict. That is after all the story of the 20th century.
This is a WONDERFUL site that goes deep into the physics required to accomplish many conceits of science fiction:
http://www.projectrho.com/rocket/
Reading it is a great way to spend a few days and educate yourself. However, fair warning, after finding it, I stopped believing that mankind will EVER reach the stars (and return). The energy costs and drawbacks are just, well, astronomical. Perhaps our successors - artificial life - will be the ones to do the exploring, without constraints of lifespans, having to cart their environment around with them, etc.
http://www.projectrho.com/rocket/
Reading it is a great way to spend a few days and educate yourself. However, fair warning, after finding it, I stopped believing that mankind will EVER reach the stars (and return). The energy costs and drawbacks are just, well, astronomical. Perhaps our successors - artificial life - will be the ones to do the exploring, without constraints of lifespans, having to cart their environment around with them, etc.
Much easier to make a huge multi-lensed telescope built out near the orbit of Jupiter and Saturn that can take pictures of extra solar planets at the same resolution as pictures of mars from convention planet bound telescopes.
I want something big and powerful enough to see the seasons on planets within 10,000LY and also able to tell the atmosphere composition and if there are sighs of life, like chlorophyll (green color) etc.... and water oceans.
Then we can worry about sending interstellar probes.
I want something big and powerful enough to see the seasons on planets within 10,000LY and also able to tell the atmosphere composition and if there are sighs of life, like chlorophyll (green color) etc.... and water oceans.
Then we can worry about sending interstellar probes.
All true, but the point of my thought excercise is to ignore all that. If your project assignment is just to build the probe, you'll sit down and think of everything you need, regardless of the world situation. My question was, can we do that now, ignoring everything else going on in the world and given an ulimited budget.
I'm not seeing much optimism about the mission (
), but I'm not convinced of a definite "no" either.
Someone mentioned accelerating to 1/10C and then taking 43 years to Proxima. But why stop at 1/10C? What about continual Hi-G accel?
With no crew to worry about, the probe can accelerate at the G-limit of the equipment aboard. Military aircraft electronics can take at least 12G. Anything launched into orbit has to take the 3G (?) of launch without breaking. Let's say the probe accelerates continually at 4G so we don't stress it too much.
So - a nuclear-powered ion drive accelerating continually at 4G, turnover halfway and decelerate at 4G until the Centauri system. How long we talking now?
And can we build that engine now?
How about 6G?
), but I'm not convinced of a definite "no" either.Someone mentioned accelerating to 1/10C and then taking 43 years to Proxima. But why stop at 1/10C? What about continual Hi-G accel?
With no crew to worry about, the probe can accelerate at the G-limit of the equipment aboard. Military aircraft electronics can take at least 12G. Anything launched into orbit has to take the 3G (?) of launch without breaking. Let's say the probe accelerates continually at 4G so we don't stress it too much.
So - a nuclear-powered ion drive accelerating continually at 4G, turnover halfway and decelerate at 4G until the Centauri system. How long we talking now?
And can we build that engine now?
How about 6G?
And the electronics inside a Copperhead shell can take 8,000G officially and tens of thousands of gees in practice, so that's not a limiting factor at all; solid state electronics are very robust, and basically the entire probe could be built to be solid state. How to achieve that sort of acceleration is the pressing question.
Timo Saloniemi
All Seeing Eye
Admiral
On a side note to this thread, I think they should build a huge jet engine type thing but without any fuel, space isn't empty and has all sorts of bits of gas, dust and so on so I think the engine might be able to attain some thrust.
I mean has anyone actually tried just throwing a fueless jet engine up their and see what happens? power it with one of those new mini nuke reactors and see what happens.
I mean has anyone actually tried just throwing a fueless jet engine up their and see what happens? power it with one of those new mini nuke reactors and see what happens.
^^
It would be like trying to paddle a boat by pushing the oar through the air.
It would be like trying to paddle a boat by pushing the oar through the air.
I've read and heard (on The Universe, spoken my Michio Kaku himself) that using a nuclear pulse drive (a drive propelled by a series of nuclear explosions), a probe or ship could reach Proxima Centauri in about 50 years.
We have the technology to build a Nuclear Pulse Drive right now, it is just a matter of funding. (Like into the hundreds of billions.)
I say take that money that the government us using to bail out Wall Street and use it for the space program, space exploration is much more important than saving a few banks from failing even more than they have failed already.
Side note, if the Partial Test Ban Treaty was not conceived then Project Orion could have taken off. But alas, damn Earth politics.
We have the technology to build a Nuclear Pulse Drive right now, it is just a matter of funding. (Like into the hundreds of billions.)
I say take that money that the government us using to bail out Wall Street and use it for the space program, space exploration is much more important than saving a few banks from failing even more than they have failed already.
Side note, if the Partial Test Ban Treaty was not conceived then Project Orion could have taken off. But alas, damn Earth politics.
The book you want to read is:
Project Orion: The True Story of the Atomic Spaceship
by George Dyson
http://www.amazon.com/Project-Orion...=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1227925789&sr=1-1
....but unlimited funding is just a small part of the problem.
It's difficult enough to put a small thermal atomic powerplant
in probes like the Cassini and upcoming Mars rover; try launching
a few thousand nuclear warheads to be used as starship fuel
that'll leave a trail of radioactive waste across the solar system
and every anti-nuke protester in the world will be climbing over
each other to take a piece of your hide.
....just ain't gonna happen unless we get invaded by aliens or the
sun threatens to explode or a rouge planet comes at the Earth
(ala "When Worlds Collide") and wipe us all out.
Project Orion: The True Story of the Atomic Spaceship
by George Dyson
http://www.amazon.com/Project-Orion...=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1227925789&sr=1-1
....but unlimited funding is just a small part of the problem.
It's difficult enough to put a small thermal atomic powerplant
in probes like the Cassini and upcoming Mars rover; try launching
a few thousand nuclear warheads to be used as starship fuel
that'll leave a trail of radioactive waste across the solar system
and every anti-nuke protester in the world will be climbing over
each other to take a piece of your hide.
....just ain't gonna happen unless we get invaded by aliens or the
sun threatens to explode or a rouge planet comes at the Earth
(ala "When Worlds Collide") and wipe us all out.
"They're coming to make you extinct. This is the price of the foot."
-Congressman Wes Dawson to the Herdmaster in Niven & Pournelles' "Footfall"
It is nearly doable with current technology.
By using a sail. Not a laser or solar sail but a particle beam sail.
A ring of superconducting material would serve as a sail propelled by a powerful particle beam powered by a very large nuclear reactor built somewhere in the inner solar system.
Such a sail could carry an unmanned (or manned) probe. It would accelerate at roughly 1,000 Gs briefly (the particle beam can't be used long before it loses focus) attaining a speed of up to 1/3rd the speed of light.
That would put it at Alpha Centauri in about 13 years with data return in just over 17 years.
The probe could not slow down. It would tear past the Alpha Centauri system in a matter of hours.
But if properly constructed, it could send outstanding pictures and other data during that time. Perhaps it could even send smaller probes veering off and going in closer to the stars and planets of the system.
By using a sail. Not a laser or solar sail but a particle beam sail.
A ring of superconducting material would serve as a sail propelled by a powerful particle beam powered by a very large nuclear reactor built somewhere in the inner solar system.
Such a sail could carry an unmanned (or manned) probe. It would accelerate at roughly 1,000 Gs briefly (the particle beam can't be used long before it loses focus) attaining a speed of up to 1/3rd the speed of light.
That would put it at Alpha Centauri in about 13 years with data return in just over 17 years.
The probe could not slow down. It would tear past the Alpha Centauri system in a matter of hours.
But if properly constructed, it could send outstanding pictures and other data during that time. Perhaps it could even send smaller probes veering off and going in closer to the stars and planets of the system.
Kaku himself tried to get the Cassini probe launch cancelled because he was afraid the nuclear power generators aboard might fall back to Earth and kill us all. Never mind that they were build to withstand that. Never mind that they had less radiation output than a sunny day at the beach... He called Cassini-type probes dinosaurs, and said we should be sending small, cheap, "furry little mammal"-like probes instead
. Ya know, those "faster cheaper" projects that kept failing?I've been calling him "furry little mammal guy" ever since, and mostly ignoring anything he has to say.
Odd he should be even be mentioning Project Orion.
Forbin, I agree. While Kaku may indeed be a staunch proponent of.. ummm... furry little mammals exploring dark space... The rest of us realize that sometimes you need a whole toolbox and enough power to do the job.
An RTG isn't like sending a whole reactor up, for petes sake.
...and they're TOUGH!
AG
An RTG isn't like sending a whole reactor up, for petes sake.
...and they're TOUGH!
AG
OK then - if you start now with an unlimited budget and unlimited manpower you will have a probe ready for launch in twenty years. But to do that you would need massive investment of money and time.
Similar threads
