E-mail updates
Follow on Twitter
Subscribe to RSS
Les Bossinas / NASA
An artist's conception shows a starship entering a wormhole to travel to a distant galaxy.
Last month's "100-Year Starship" conference, backed by NASA and the Pentagon's Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency, threw a huge spotlight on the idea of sending spacecraft far beyond our solar system — but how realistic is that idea? Check out what one of the world's top experts on the subject has to say on "Virtually Speaking Science."
Marc Millis, the researcher behind NASA's Breakthrough Propulsion Physics Project and the nonprofit Tau Zero Foundation, was my guest on tonight's show, which is available as a podcast via BlogTalkRadio and iTunes.
Millis estimates that it'll take 200 years to get in position for the first missions to stars beyond our own, but he says there are lots of small steps we can take starting tomorrow to "chip away" at the challenge. Experiments with solar sails have already started, and Millis says the next step there is to figure out the business case for more ambitious light-powered trips.
There are all sorts of potential breakthroughs to consider: Could the recent reports of faster-than-light neutrinos point to a way to break the speed limit set by special relativity? Could laser experiments let scientists warp the fabric of space-time on a small scale? "What creates the properties of an inertial frame, and how does that relate to space travel?" Millis asked.
Is it worth spending money on precursor missions — for example, sending a "Super-Hubble" space telescope beyond the edge of our solar system to look outward, and inward? "What would it take to do that? How much would it cost?" Millis said.
Here's an edited transcript of my pre-show Q&A with Millis:
Cosmic Log: More people are aware that interstellar flight is on the agenda, in part because of the 100-Year Starship conference. So is anyone building a starship anytime soon? What's the next step?
Millis: No one's building a starship anytime soon, although a lot of people would like to attempt that. The workshop had about 1,000 people there. It was open to the public, and I was glad to see some very intelligent questions from the public. It was an introductory look at not only the technology, but also some of the social issues, and how you would do financing.
The next step by DARPA is that there's a competition out to award the remaining funds of about $500,000 [out of an original $1 million] as seed money to whoever can suggest the best organizational structure to carry forward with the 100-Year Starship image. That will be an organization that will work for at least a century to develop the technology and financing to ultimately enable starships.
Q: Do you see Tau Zero as that organization?
A: Tau Zero is making a proposal. To gauge our chances, I would have to know what all the other competitors are proposing, and that's hard to do.
Q: Could it be that the social issues are actually more challenging than the technological issues?
A: Theoretically, it would be possible to send a probe to the nearest neighboring star in less than a century, so you could actually get your data back. But the required expense is beyond what I think our society could commit to right now.
Q: What's the ballpark figure for the cost?
A: There isn't one, because it's so beyond what we can do.
Based on the progression of society ... if we don't change anything that we're doing, it looks as if it might take another two centuries to have an interstellar probe that's fast enough to complete a mission within a human lifespan. Not that there's people on board, but that the people who launched the mission could get the data back before they retire. We have a long way to go.
The important issue to figure out today is to make sure we have a sane comparison of the real challenges and the real state of the art, so we're proceeding wisely here. Then, from that, ask, "OK, if that's where we are, what can we start tomorrow to chip away at those issues?" We can't build the starship tomorrow, but we can identify the correct questions to ask, and begin seeking answers to those questions. When it looks more promising, and the advancements are there, fine.
On the social issues ... when you think of leaving the planet, and representing Earth, that requires a high degree of political will and collaboration. I don't consider that impossible, and things are certainly looking up in terms of nations collaborating on major space topics. But I don't know how long it will take to really bring this collaboration to bear. Now this doesn't preclude any one sufficiently able and wealthy team from launching their own mission, on their own. Would that be ethical or not?
Then, suppose we did identify a habitable planet. Is it really ours to consider colonizing?
There are a lot of huge questions: What's the optimal population for an interstellar trip? What are the governance models? What's the meaning of life? When you start thinking about "world ships," where we're sending people instead of just robotic probes, that provides a venue that's far enough out that you can rationally discuss these questions. It's an interesting opportunity that we really haven't tapped into yet.
Q: I guess one of those big questions would be, "Why travel to other star systems?" How would you answer that one?
A: The ultimate, highest-priority benefit of star flight is the survival of the human species beyond the fate of our own solar system and our home planet. In the meantime, the progress we make to try to turn all this stuff into a reality will result in profound improvements in energy conversion, transportation, self-supporting life support — things that would be very useful for life on Earth. And then there's the social aspect. This effort can give us hope for a better future, expand our opportunities — and hopefully give people a frontier to conquer, rather than being left with no option other than to conquer each other.
More about interstellar flight:
- The best options for flying to other stars
- Billionaires wanted for starship plan
- Sex poses big challenge for interstellar travel
Podcasts from 'Virtually Speaking Science':
- Download tonight's hourlong show from BlogTalkRadio or iTunes
- Sean Carroll on the puzzling frontiers of physics
- Rand Simberg on the private-enterprise vision for spaceflight
- Martin Hoffert on the future of energy policy
- George Djorgovski on science in virtual worlds
- Alan Stern on suborbital research and NASA's mission to Pluto
- Col. 'Coyote' Smith on the outlook for space solar power
- Tim Pickens on rocket ventures and the Google Lunar X Prize
Last update: 10:30 p.m. ET Nov. 2.
Many thanks to the Meta Institute for Computational Astrophysics for co-sponsoring tonight's Second Life talk at the Stella Nova auditorium.
Connect with the Cosmic Log community by "liking" the log's Facebook page, following @b0yle on Twitter or adding me to your Google+ circle. You can also check out "The Case for Pluto," my book about the controversial dwarf planet and the search for other worlds.
Leave a Comment:
Twinkle, Twinkle, little Star
When will I vist you in my car?
Millions are starving, in need of food
But we'll waste zillions for our greater good!
Unless we are all dead, there will always be some people starving because people cannot control themselves and they have kids they cannot afford. To stop all progress because of this does nothing. All the money spent for space related activities goes to feed those who work for a living and their families. The final product just ends up going elsewhere. We have to think about the long term as a species and space will be the place we ultimately have to go. It is best to get this done while we still have the energy resources to do so.
Birth Control
We'll be sure to leave you behind. Better to waste zillions on science R&D than illusory WMD.
Millions are starving, their 'god' told them "Breed!"
It's ignorant to put them above our global need!
Millions are starving, millions in need
But Allah says "First, the infidels must bleed!"
The meek shall inherit the earth; the rest shall move on to the stars.
Actually, it's more likely the poor, disenfranchised and third world will inherit the Earth, or what's left of it.
The rich, powerful, well-educated of the G-20 countries will colonize the stars and leave the rest behind to eke by on the meager remaining resources and choke on the pollution the 1% left behind.
But that's 200+ years in the future. You and I won't even be a memory by then. Dust in the wind, my friend, that's all we are is dust in the wind.
Skip has nailed it. Thread won!
The reasons for doing this are documented rather well in the original article. Or did you think that bad poetry was a good rebuttal to the well thought-out points of a highly qualified professional?
Whatever the cost of this may be, it will pale in comparison to what we are already spending on the military, on bail outs that make sure that the very rich don't have to take responsibility for their own mistakes, and on bribes -- errr sorry, CAMPAIGN CONTRIBUTIONS -- from lobbyists intent on highjacking our democracy.
Now, tell me again why you are concerned about the pitiful amount of money that we currently spend on science?
Thanks Pete.
Disabled Voter,
Clearly you did not read the article. To develop a starship capable of interstellar travel, we need serious technological advancements that will change the way we live right here on Earth, including food production. So, by going out into space, we can develop a way to feed those "starving millions" you mention.
Derpy,
If your kid "knows how to build a rocket" as well as you know how to use punctuation, you couldn't pay me to ride in it.
I have a question: How big of a comet, exploding about 3000' above the ground, would it take to flaten an area the size of the entire middle east, or at least 10,000 sq. miles directly, plus more indirectly, ie via wind effects, with no ground upheaval?
Wow, that'll take a lot of work. The Tunguska object is thought to have been 65 to 100 feet wide and may have flattened 500,000 acres (or maybe actually much less). To flatten the entire Middle East, I think you're talking on the order of a kilometer, but my guess is that there'd have to be an impact with ground upheaval. Here's more about the Tunguska effect:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/25455896/ns/technology_and_science-space/t/years-later-tunguska-remains-mysterious/
Tunguska was a massive steam explosion from an icy comet.
The comet was just the right size to fully vaporize.
The only way to affect more area would be to have an entire barrage of these size objects.
.
Well, if you're in a hurry and you want the job done right I'd say tactical nukes would do the job. The upside being we'll have someplace to store our nuclear waste Waaaaay into the future. The downside...uh....the downside is.......dang, I can't think of a downside!
JUST KIDDING, JUST KIDDING, nobody wants to murder eleventy-million people ANYWHERE on the planet.
My comment is intended to be SARCASM directed at the first poster on this thread who singled out the middle east for his hypothetical question.
Calm down, nobody wants to hurt anybody....do they?
It's not been verified what caused Tunguska. One obvious way would be to further investigate Lake Cheko to determine if there's a relation between it and the event. Outside of that there's scenarios that work for it being either a comet or an asteroid. One thing for sure is that it wasn't a very large body (estimated at far under 100m in diameter) but its effects were felt around the world. Scale the size up to a half kilometer (fairly small for a space rock or comet) and needless to say we'd end up having a very bad day. I wouldn't worry about flattening an area the size of the middle east; it would be a world ender.
I have to ask though: what does that question have to do with the article? lol
Ooo-ooo-I can answer that, pick me, pick me.
The answer is "NOTHING." It has NOTHING to do with the article.
Now can I have a cookie? (with a nod to Don Rickles)
lol Skip.
You genocidal mad-man.
Well, personally, as an avid fan of, you know, world peace and @!$%# like that, I would say that were a celestial body to impact the Middle East and wipe it off the map, certainly the direct implications of that happening would disturb the status quo of the world, in terms of ecology, climate, et cetera, but in regards to terrorism, well, terrorism would become almost a forgotten term, 50 years from said event.
Except, of course, in the case of Xtians bombing abortion clinics. But, that goes without saying.
I am praying for that rock...
Energy production should be job one. We know it takes a ton of it to go fast, and it would have applications on earth also. I am befuddled by the push for solar sails, as this is a dead end technology as far as I can tell. You're not going faster than light while being pushed with it. Even if a good enough sail could get you to say; 10% the speed of light, it'd take 40+ years to get to the next star. Not to mention the eon it would take to get up to speed. This is really just good money being tossed away until we can work out an effective way to make and store anti-matter, or develop an effective method of fusion. I think that's where the money needs to go. As too disabled voter above, tinkling on stars in your car sounds like something that'd involve Lindsey Lohan and too much beer. You post make no sense.
Couldn't a unmanned Orion Drive starship reach Alpha Proxima, if you include terminal deceleration to return to planetary orbital speed at the target, in less than 15 years? couldn't we build a ship of this type as far back as, say, 1975? couldn't you get a round trip in less than 30 years? couldn't you shave off almost a third of that time by a near-end-stage separation of a stay-in-orbit probe capable of independent deceleration, while the primary slingshots back?
I guess my question is this: why is the article misleading people about this 200 year thing, especially for an unmanned probe? No one ever heard of Dyson?
It would then take on the order of 1000 years for the energy-limited heat sink Orion design to reach Alpha Centauri. There is no way a space ship of that size could travel anywhere close to the speed of light being of that mass. Not in this lifetime anyway. Lets say you reach 186,000 miles per hour even. That is only 3600th of the speed of light (186k per sec.) That would be hmmmm 3600 x 4.5 years to reach there and that is the closest star, never mind the trillions of other stars in universe that are from a dozen light years to millions and billions. I am afraid we are stuck to our system for the time being.
It would then take on the order of 1000 years for the energy-limited heat sink Orion design to reach Alpha Centauri. There is no way a space ship of that size could travel anywhere close to the speed of light being of that mass. Not in this lifetime anyway. Lets say you reach 186,000 miles per hour even. That is only 3600th of the speed of light (186k per sec.) That would be hmmmm 3600 x 4.5 years to reach there and that is the closest star, never mind the trillions of other stars in universe that are from a dozen light years to millions and billions. I am afraid we are stuck to our system for the time being.
It would then take on the order of 1000 years for the energy-limited heat sink Orion design to reach Alpha Centauri. There is no way a space ship of that size could travel anywhere close to the speed of light being of that mass. Not in this lifetime anyway. Lets say you reach 186,000 miles per hour even. That is only 3600th of the speed of light (186k per sec.) That would be hmmmm 3600 x 4.5 years to reach there and that is the closest star, never mind the trillions of other stars in universe that are from a dozen light years to millions and billions. I am afraid we are stuck to our system for the time being.
It would then take on the order of 1000 years for the energy-limited heat sink Orion design to reach Alpha Centauri. There is no way a space ship of that size could travel anywhere close to the speed of light being of that mass. Not in this lifetime anyway. Lets say you reach 186,000 miles per hour even. That is only 3600th of the speed of light (186k per sec.) That would be hmmmm 3600 x 4.5 years to reach there and that is the closest star, never mind the trillions of other stars in universe that are from a dozen light years to millions and billions. I am afraid we are stuck to our system for the time being.
It would then take on the order of 1000 years for the energy-limited heat sink Orion design to reach Alpha Centauri. There is no way a space ship of that size could travel anywhere close to the speed of light being of that mass. Not in this lifetime anyway. Lets say you reach 186,000 miles per hour even. That is only 3600th of the speed of light (186k per sec.) That would be hmmmm 3600 x 4.5 years to reach there and that is the closest star, never mind the trillions of other stars in universe that are from a dozen light years to millions and billions. I am afraid we are stuck to our system for the time being.
Problems:
Any interstellar dust the ship would hit at that speed would destroy it.
The people on board would have to recycle everything, including the dead, making the idea of recycling urine seem yummy by comparison.
The hull would have to be electrified to the tune of 5 million volts, or surrounded by 30 meters of heavy water just to stop them all from dying of cancer from various radiation sources.
We would have to simulate gravity by some means otherwise redesign the chairs and beds to work with limbs that may sprout from any direction, which is what happens to fetuses under zero-gravity.
Even after all that nay-saying, I still would let them raise my taxes to help fund it. We need to move forward and advance, at almost any cost, if not, why even bother having children.
My only request, is that no religious people be allowed on board, we don't need them spreading their virus-like delusions across the universe. Maybe that's why the aliens don't visit us, we have been quarantined.
Hey Alan-962575! Do you like to see your name and ramblings?
Hey Alan-962575! Do you like to see your name and ramblings?
Hey Alan-962575! Do you like to see your name and ramblings?
Hey Alan-962575! Do you like to see your name and ramblings?
Yes that or the desire to avoid the tired, mind-numbing, broad generalizations used to judge and spread intolerance that some people seem unable to see in themselves.
MacGyver,
A giant rotating canister, a la Arthur C. Clarke's Rendezvous with Rama would solve a lot of the gravity problems on multigenerational 'ark' type of ship. The cost of something so large, and the propulsion system, are of course still issues to be solved.
Something that has always irritated me -- the "dark ages". Rome fell in about 500 AD and the dark ages began. Let's say things picked back up again around 1500 AD, give or take a century or so. That's 1000 years.
To my way of thinking, we are 1000 years behind. I have to wonder what the world would have been like if the headway and development trajectory started by the Greeks and Romans had continued.
@Jason,
I acknowledge full well the intolerance in my statement. One of us has a defined non-changing set of rules they are supposed to follow in life written down in a book, and one of us bases their actions solely on how they want to be treated. I'm just saying, you have a book that says you should be killing me, and I am going to be intolerant to an organization that says I should be killed. You may not follow all the rules put down in your book, but some do, so as long as religious organizations exist that have doctrine that they think everyone should follow, and praise the ones that follow it the best, I am in danger from their extremists.
You should read your bible more, but be warned, reading the bible is the best way to become an atheist. You should read Luke, 19:27, the part where Jesus says that you should kill people like me.
Also note that I could never speak for all atheists, because there is only one thing that we all have in common, a lack of belief in god(s). My opinions are my own. I was simply making a joke for people that may be like-minded, not lobbing for death camps.
Have a good day.
Grump:
A lot of interesting things happened during the Early Middle Ages (the "Dark Ages"), though, in terms of inventions/innovations/etc. There are a couple of good books about it, I think one of them was titled "The Not-so Dark Ages". I'm not at home, so I can't link anything at the moment.
But yes, damn those barbarian hordes! *shakes fist*
Observer, I just googled ' the not so dark ages' and found all sorts of stuff. I know there were considerable advances, but the pace of scientific advancement established by the Greeks and Romans slowed to an incredibly slow space. The Catholic Church, the climate and the economy all conspired against us all. Rather than science, the intellectuals argued whether or not Christ owned his sandals --really!!
I just wonder what could have been.
Lucky for me, I am not related to the barbarian hordes. If I were, I wouldn't be able to stand myself.
The main "progress" scientifically speaking during the so-called dark ages was happening in the middle east, the Persians and Arabs were developing al-gebra and al-chemy (the basis of modern chemistry), and astronomy, as well as preserving many of the ancient Greek texts, copies of which had been destroyed at the librbary at Alexandria but were luckily saved in Baghdad, Mecca and other locations.
We wouldn't be where we are now without this. The renaissance was basically initiated by the rediscovery of these ancient texts when the crusaders went east into the foreign lands. Without this, the renaissance might have been delayed many centuries.
MikeyMike, Yeah, I know. The middle east didn't have the Church helping them along. The middle east also made quite a few medical advances that were not known in the west. You are right, they may have saved our butts when they saved the ancient texts.
But, you know what I mean when I lament the fall of Rome and the accompanying drive to learn about the natural world. I always wonder how things would have been different.
@MacGyver This is not the forum for religious discussions which is what gripes me the most about someone like you - you use whatever excuse you can find to spread your delusions when they were not asked for in the first place. The scripture you're referring to was part of a parable. But this is now twice you have placed something where it doesn't belong. You also have a doctrine you think everyone should follow and you are about as extreme in that belief as anyone. Religious organizations and cultures that you don't agree with will always exist so I guess you get to continue in your paranoia and extremism about them all endangering your life.
Maybe I was making a joke too. Got under your skin didn't it? Tolerance is what is called for when cooperating in any venture. But I'm going to end this out of place discussion here and let you go back to your world where Jesus is out to get ya.
Have a good day.
I believe Carl Sagan touches on the question of where science would be if the Ancient Greeks would have continued on what they started. Interesting stuff to think about.
Speaking of not making sense. You = your. Vine is not letting me clean up my post? Seriously? Not even a minute to proof a full paragraph? Hmmm...something odd today. I'm sure they'll get it worked out.
The new design of fusion reactors currently being tested along with along with development of some type of system to warp space around a ship to achieve faster than light speeds is the direction research should be moving. The energy requirements for such a ship, while huge, aren't so huge to make the idea unrealistic. Big endeavours like interstellar travel require bigger and better ideas than light sails. And making for even the nearest star system in slower than light craft wouldn't be practical unless we were taking enough people to colonize another world. We'd spend most of a lifetime to send a couple of guys trillions of miles away to leave nothing more than a satellite full of corpses orbiting a star we're no closer to doing anything with.
I think we should hitch a ride on an alien vessel. They seem to buzzing around us all the time. I thought the US had a bunch in area 51.
Ok they can call it Oykot and build it next to Narnia.
Look if you really have that much spare cash just rebuild brick-for-brick what was lost.
Still have too much cash? Send some to me. I can save you money next time you decide to waste billions of Yen and decades building something you might use. The U.S. has done this repeatedly.
Wrong thread. This is about starships, not duplicate Tokyos.
We've already visited outer space with Jefferson Starship. See ya.......in another dimension.
The stage was now set for the Alan Parsons Project, which I believe was some sort of hovercraft.
ELO had their own space ship... this is old news.
I feel like a major MAJOR step toward any sort of future in space is the development of microgravity resource extraction and manufacturing. If we can get most of the raw materials to build spaceships FROM space (from the moon, captured asteroids or comets, for example), then we won't have to worry about the cost of escaping the earth's gravity well.
That's one of the best arguments for establishing a permanent moon base, in order to begin industrial manufacturing on site. But even getting such a base set up would be a major undertaking.
6 months in space causes extreme muscle loss, a 100 year journey in space today would be death?
ok yes The article says 200 years from now there will be better technology and the missions will be unmanned.
Scientists can see into the future through logic... no, no, it's not a crystal ball made out of neutrinos lol.
Aside from that, by all means send a "probe" to the nearest star as soon as possible.
Keep working on your tech "time bending lasers" lol and what not from all the science fiction that didn't pan out we have gotten useful technology like well just name any modern device you find useful, and chances are NASA or some affiliate helped bring that to reality.
So now you want to just eradicate everyone in the middle east do you? That's an interesting question: if we can propel a starship to a high enough speed for interstellar travel, and it accidentally collides with an alien world--or our own on the return trip--what happens? You have the destruction of an entire planet from an object much smaller than a kilometer, all due to human error. Or, we could just use the same technology to eradicate entire continents on our own planet. Genius, really.
The brakes don't work. Oh noooooooooo.
"No one's building a starship anytime soon, although a lot of people would like to attempt that".....he needs to speak for himself, leave the rest of us out of it.
Apparently there were something like 1,000 people at the conference. Obviously that did not include you.
I listened to the Podcast. My impression of Mr. Millis was that he has an earnest speaking manner, but a promotional pitch like Elmer Gantry.
I heard lots of high-sounding ideas promoted as facts: that Asteroid mining could be profitable (for "rare earth minerals, of course, because they are, well, rare and essential, when rare earth minerals may not be essential after all...no mention of that.) No business plan for that, of course, nothing but airy-fairy conjecture to support Millis' solicitation of public interest.
I was skeptical of these DARPA-sponsored boondoggles before the podcast. Now I am skeptical to the point of being angry and cynical. More grrrrrs than giggles.
What is certainly true is that there is a lot of naive public interest in these space exploration / exploitation fantasies. Low-hanging fruit for space-flight industrialists and entrepreneurs.
May be yet another industrial compartment to occupy.
Yeah, I hate these DARPA-sponsored boondoggles too. Like the internet, what a fricken joke! What did the internet ever do for anyone? (Sarcasm!!)
The first step is somehow leapfrogging the destructive economic fiction we've managed to fabricate for our species...namely the inefficient race to the bottom that is 200+ nation state teams independently competing for the Earth's scarce resources.
I think it's impossible to frame the greater good of the species (i.e., diversification of humanity's reliance on any one planet) in the current construct...a construct that leads to a destructive and inefficient allocation of our finite resources based upon arbitrary lines drawn on the globe by some previous pre-electric generation now dead. The current imperialistic incentive structure has us trying to collect as many resource chips within our synthetic borders as possible without regard for the long term effect such a poker-like scheme will yield for humanity.
It's disingenuous to propose that, with our resources so divided and our incentives so structured, that we'll ever transcend this self-destructive game and take into account species-level needs like space travel and interplanetary diversification. Moreover, the classification of scientific research exacerbates the problem by commoditizing human knowledge and subjecting it to imperialistic collection within our artificial nation state scheme.
The ridiculous idea of a "space race" between nations is conclusive proof of this problem. The true "space race" is humanity vs. uninhabitability of the Earth, not the US vs. Russia or China or otherwise. It's crazy to me to think that the majority of people somehow conceptualize it differently.
We're going about this with at least one analogical hand tied behind our backs, if not both. I find it hard to see how the result of divvying our resources and knowledge as we do currently will be interstellar space travel. It's a classic externality/free rider problem with no established supranational body to remedy it. The cost of interstellar travel for any individual nation is artificially skewed higher because individual nations must absorb all of it, R&D, design, production...while the benefit of interstellar travel is skewed lower because, once it is achieved, it is easily duplicable and the benefit of space travel is framed in terms of whatever artificial subset of humanity happens to be "citizens" of that artificial nation state.
I'll quit ranting, but it is depressing to think that we're the first species on this planet with the opportunity to pursue colonization of other planets but, absent some systemic change, with all our intelligence we've somehow managed to set up and abide by a system in which we'll likely squander that opportunity fighting over fossil fuels, gold and paper currency so a few rich folks in each respective artificial nation state at the top of the synthetic pyramid scheme can continue eating caviar and driving Bentleys.
You summarize the situation well...........You could have additionally added the race to be first to pollute other planets and particularly other solar systems. We are good at that here on earth and could spread that across the universe.
"...namely the inefficient race to the bottom that is 200+ nation state teams independently competing for the Earth's scarce resources."
As opposed to a single world government, that would somehow magically know how best to manage those resources?
Yeah, good luck with that...
(BTW, the resources aren't all down here. One of the reasons for going into space, is to get at resources elsewhere. And I have no qualms about mining always-and-extremely dead asteroids or bodies like Earth's Moon, once it's practical and economical to do so.
That, instead of damaging the one world we currently know has a biosphere...)
Couldn't a unmanned Orion Drive starship reach Alpha Proxima, if you include terminal deceleration to return to planetary orbital speed at the target, in less than 15 years? couldn't we build a ship of this type as far back as, say, 1975? couldn't you get a round trip in less than 30 years? couldn't you shave off almost a third of that time by a near-end-stage separation of a stay-in-orbit probe capable of independent deceleration, while the primary slingshots back?
I guess my question is this: why are you misleading people about this 200 year thing, especially for an unmanned probe? No one ever heard of Dyson?
Couldn't a unmanned Orion Drive starship reach Alpha Proxima, if you include terminal deceleration to return to planetary orbital speed at the target, in less than 15 years? couldn't we build a ship of this type as far back as, say, 1975? couldn't you get a round trip in less than 30 years? couldn't you shave off almost a third of that time by a near-end-stage separation of a stay-in-orbit probe capable of independent deceleration, while the primary slingshots back?
I guess my question is this: why are you misleading people about this 200 year thing, especially for an unmanned probe? No one ever heard of Dyson?
Couldn't a unmanned Orion Drive starship reach Alpha Proxima, if you include terminal deceleration to return to planetary orbital speed at the target, in less than 15 years? couldn't we build a ship of this type as far back as, say, 1975? couldn't you get a round trip in less than 30 years? couldn't you shave off almost a third of that time by a near-end-stage separation of a stay-in-orbit probe capable of independent deceleration, while the primary slingshots back?
I guess my question is this: why are you misleading people about this 200 year thing, especially for an unmanned probe? No one ever heard of Dyson?
Couldn't a unmanned Orion Drive starship reach Alpha Proxima, if you include terminal deceleration to return to planetary orbital speed at the target, in less than 15 years? couldn't we build a ship of this type as far back as, say, 1975? couldn't you get a round trip in less than 30 years? couldn't you shave off almost a third of that time by a near-end-stage separation of a stay-in-orbit probe capable of independent deceleration, while the primary slingshots back?
I guess my question is this: why are you misleading people about this 200 year thing, especially for an unmanned probe? No one ever heard of Dyson?
Couldn't a unmanned Orion Drive starship reach Alpha Proxima, if you include terminal deceleration to return to planetary orbital speed at the target, in less than 15 years? couldn't we build a ship of this type as far back as, say, 1975? couldn't you get a round trip in less than 30 years? couldn't you shave off almost a third of that time by a near-end-stage separation of a stay-in-orbit probe capable of independent deceleration, while the primary slingshots back?
I guess my question is this: why are you misleading people about this 200 year thing, especially for an unmanned probe? No one ever heard of Dyson?
If at first your computer doesn't post, click it, click it, click it again.
We are already on an interstellar journey, and we should invest the same amount of time and energy into protecting our current spaceship. a.k.a Earth, as we will need to design a new one. Even in Star Trek, most terrestrial problems were overcome before they boldly went where no man had gone before.
Sooooo...you want to base scientific decisions on a TV sci-fi series? We might never solve all our problems on this planet. That shouldn't stop all attempts at preserving our species by expansion into the cosmos.
Lost,
In the Star Trek universe, faster than light travel was developed while the Earth emerged from WW3. No governments, no NASA, just a guy with an ICBM-based ship and a vision. The Earth had significant problems in that horrid future, but it was the realization that we are not alone in the universe that united mankind. The basic problems we have now were there (food, shelter, survival).
The list of technological breakthroughs the space program (ours and others) have given us is pretty well documented. Many of the things we use today would be different, if available at all, without a space program. We will not feed the hungry masses by defunding NASA. But we might develop new ways to produce food that will feed the hungry masses. Or new energy sources that will decrease or eliminate our dependence on finite fossil fuels. And that is worth the investment.
'Harcourt Fenton Mudd'... that's awesome. Mudd's Women is a classic episode.
"We are already on an interstellar journey,..."
If you mean in the sense that our solar system is moving around the galaxy with everything else, yes, but so what? I've heart the 'Spaceship Earth' metaphor for decades, but like most metaphors, it shouldn't be taken too literally. If Earth is a spaceship, show me where the bridge and controls are.
Otherwise, it's like equating continental drift with sailing.
"...and we should invest the same amount of time and energy into protecting our current spaceship. a.k.a Earth, as we will need to design a new one."
Who says we aren't? Before saying anything resembling; "We should take the money we spend 'on space,' and spend it on (fill in blank) instead,' find out how much actually is spent 'on space,' and how much is already being spent on whatever you filled in the blank with. You may find that 'space' is already a fraction of your preferred project...
"Even in Star Trek, most terrestrial problems were overcome before they boldly went where no man had gone before."
If you were a good Trek fan, you'd know that the first warp drive was tested not long after a major world conflict... ('Star Trek: First Contact')
Besides, no conflict of some kind, no story. All fiction revolves around someone(s) with some kind of problems(s) to solve or overcome, whether it's a struggling Depression-era farmer, an police detective trying to find a serial killer, or a young hero out to overthrow the Evil Galactic Empire(tm)...
We may all want to live in a wold where everything's okay, but we don't want that in our fiction.
We do indeed have Spaceship Earth. We also have a time machine but unfortunately it works in only one direction AFAIK and it's much harder to control than our spaceship.
I agree 100% with one-eyed undertaker on this one. The problem is not only that we are not able to collectively set aside our instincts for self-preservation at the level of the nation-state and cooperatively terraform other planets that are potentially inhabitable. A far more pressing need is the one to actively develop means of generating electricity and heat other than those that rely on oil, gas, coal, and diesel. As soon as those are gone, at this point in time we're all toast - try living without electricity (at least in countries where it snows).
I wish I had the confidence that mankind would even make it to 200 years but I don't. We just seem to be oblivious to our own fragility.
I don't think interstellar travel is that far-fetched.
If we could accelerate a starship at 1g to 99.9% of the speed of light, coast, then decelerate at 1g, a 4.3ly trip to Alpha Centauri would seem to last only 86 days to the astronauts due to relativistic time dilation (it would appear to take 5 years 99 days to those of us back on Earth).
What it will take is a new energy source thousands of orders of magnitude more powerful than nuclear power. Accelerating a 250,000 kg starship at 1g initially requires approximately 2.45 million newtons or 550,000 lbs of thrust. Unfortunately mass increases with velocity, so while relativity helps the trip through time dilation it hurts by mass increase. At 99.8% of c, the ship will require approximately 54.8 million newtons or 12.3 million lbs of thrust, and the thrust would have to be maintained 24/7 for about a year (Earth frame of reference) or 16 days (starship frame of reference).
While this would require an extreme amount of energy, one hundred years ago if you suggested that a 90,000 ton ship could be powered for 25 years on a single load of fuel, people would have called you crazy, but now we have nuclear powered aircraft carriers that do just that.
As MacGyver points out above, interstellar dust would be an issue, especially traveling through the Oort cloud (and a similar cloud that presumably surrounds Alpha Centauri).
If your propulsion system is a mass to energy conversion such as fusion, then wouldn't the increasing mass of your fuel make up for some of the increased need for more propulsive power?
Good point, I hadn't thought of that. The calculations are beyond me, but I suspect we will still need a new source of energy that is to nuclear power what nuclear power is to coal.
I am not a proponent of human spaceflight, but there is plenty of energy in the vacuum of space (antimatter). We just need to find out how to extract it and harness it.
PS,
Thunderstorms Make Antimatter
... for more see
http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2011/11jan_antimatter/
Could we place a space station and/or spacecraft above these storms to capture the antimatter?
I suspect that the collision-with-interstellar-dust-at-really-really-high-speeds problem is insurmountable.... bu-uuut that's boring so....
I think it would be easier to send a tiny payload of nanobots that can build the necessary observation and transmission tools when it arrives at Tau Ceti or wherever. For that matter, perhaps in a few hundred years we will be able to capture enough information about ourselves to build a human upon arrival, perhaps even a specific human.
It's hard to say what we could be capable of doing 10,000 years from now. I only wish I could see it, sigh.
I love science fiction and would be thrilled to see such a vessel built. But it isn't going to happen, and there are many reasons why. We are a relatively primitive race and have a lot of issues to work out amongst ourselves here on Earth before we can reach out that far beyond our own solar system. I mean let's face it, we still smoke rolled up weeds and worship gods. We really aren't that different from the natives who lived in huts two thousand years ago, except that we are more sedentary and comfortable (and able to kill with greater efficiency).
Once we figure out how to tweak the genome and create smarter humans, then we will be able to rise above the ignorance that we are mired in and reach for the stars. The next step in our evolution will be for us to alter our own genetic makeup. Those who embrace this will flourish, those who eschew it will continue to live as savages. The humans who will travel to other solar systems will have about as much in common with us as we have with Neanderthals.
Have you seen the movie Idiocracy?
YES! I love it.
Steve, it's the technology. We don't yet have it. Becoming a world of non-smoking atheists wasn't necessary for us to get as far as we have, it isn't likely to keep us from getting farther....
I'm for human enhancement as well, but more 'intelligent' doesn't necessarily lead to more Utopian.
Fortunately, spaceflight, of any distance, doesn't have to wait for that, either...
Yours is more a statement of wishful thinking, than true requirements for interstellar flight.
C'mon, Steve, we're not so bad. Some of my best friends are humans.
The whole notion of finding another planet to colonize is ridiculous. First of all, what are the chances of finding another planet with the precise temperature, oxygen content, water availability and gravity as Earth? It has to be VERY unlikely. And if such a planet exists, what makes us so sure that it's not already inhabited by beings who don't want us moving in?
I'd much prefer to live in Siberia or under the Atlantic ocean rather than living on a planet that didn't have the right environment or gravity. Other planets may be really interesting to visit, but I highly doubt that any of us would want to live on them permanently. We evolved to flouish on Earth; there isn't any other option for us. So we had better take care of our planet because if it dies we are SCREWED.
This is why the guy thinks it will be another 200+ years before we can travel to another world let alone colonize it. being that we would have to send a unmanned probe to determine weather it would be worth traveling to to colonize and if there is life already there. Not to mention the fact that they're could have already been another race of beings doing the same thing to the same planet and or to ours. The Travel time between stars is vast. I believe the best time scientists have come up with just to travel from earth to Mars would be at least a month. Earth and Mars are at there closests 54.6 million kilometers and at they're farthest 401 million kilometers. 1 Light year is 10 Trillion Kilometers. If it takes a Month to travel 54.6 million kilometers and that is a theoretical Engine. Technology right now puts us at a 6 month travel time from earth to mars. But lets use the 1 month time period being that our technology could advance that far in 10 to 20 years. Even at 1 month traveling 54.6 million Km it would take over 1000 years just to travel 1 light year. In order to even come close to a humans life span we would need to be able to travel from Earth to mars in 3 or 4 hours and that would put us right at 1 light year taking about 100 years. but the Closest Star with Planets is Alpha Centauri at 4.24 light years away which means we would first have to be able to travel to from mars to earth with in 1 hour to be able to make it to Alpha centauri with in 100 years. And as of right now best we can do is a 6 month trip and the best we will be able to do in the next 10 to 20 years will be a 1 month trip however if that trend continues we should be able to travel from earth to mars in an hour or less in about 100 years or so and by then we might be able to send a probe that would take 100 years to get to alpha centauri which would give us an idea on what is there. Also with that trending by the time our probe gets there we will be able to follow it and make the trip in 5 years or less. Also have the ability to reach other stars. So I believe the guy is right in about 200 years I can see it happening....so it won't happen in my life time or my children's life time but it will happen when my grand children and old and gray. Either way whats the point of Procreation if all your doing is taking care of yourself and not your children or your children's children?? I say lets get'r'done!
"So we had better take care of our planet because if it dies we are SCREWED."
I would hope so. Seeing a warmongering species that devours all it's natural resources and pollutes it's own environment propagate to other star systems, it would be a travesty....
First, it doesn't have to be 'precise.' There are plenty of people who are itching to colonize Mars.
Indeed, it doesn't have to be 'close.' Humans will eventually have a serious presence on the Moon, and I'm sure the Universe abounds with objects like that. They'll be enabled by technology, just like anyone living in Siberia or under the Atlantic...or anywhere on earth that we can't run essentially naked.
"And if such a planet exists, what makes us so sure that it's not already inhabited by beings who don't want us moving in?"
Well, that's what SETI and big solar system based telescopes are for. We'll do much more of that, long before starships are possible, and have a pretty good sense of the worlds we go to, before we go.
Indeed, not all interstellar travelers (or interplanetary, for that matter) are out to colonize. Some will want to find ('seek out,' as a well-known SF series states) other life, hopefully intelligent.