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:
The whole cosmos is controlled by the force known as electromagnetism.
By manipulating that force humans likely could travel to the far reaches of the cosmos without violating any of the known laws of physics since they would be using a different media in which to travel.
We need to seek out other world and other civilizations (to bail out with taxpayer funds).
I do believe we a species needs to become confortable with space and travel, because it is a matter of time before kill our self by killing earth or the unknown space rock this size small moon (lets say a rock 100 miles across) is heading for us. It's only stupidity to believe that it doesn't exist, it just only a matter of when. So for we a species to suvive space is it, and maybe we can terra-form Mars as Earth 2. I just wish I would live long enough to see man meet the aliens.
I want a ticket on the "Jefferson Starship" if they decide do build one
"Black sails knifing through the pitchblende night
Away from the radioactive landmass madness
From the silver-suited people searching out
Uncontaminated food and shelter on the shores
No glowing metal on our ship of wood only
Free happy crazy people naked in the universe"
It amazes me that our beliefs (religion) are so strong that we would leave our planet and commit genocide to the ihabitants of another planet before we would ever consider things like birth control on a planetary level. I would say lets feed the poor that are here but they'll just create more poor. Our good deeds actually fly in the face of natural selection. I'm glad I won't be here for the planetary escape that will be required once our religious beliefs lay waste to our planet.
Eventually we will have reached the limit of our resources. We have to start preparing. If not for that reason, just for the technological advancements it would bring. We can do both, care for our people here & advance. After all, we are only limited by the limits we place on ourselves
"Dream Big!" --- Even if you only get half way there, you'll have gone where no man has gone before
The stars are our future, no doubt. Our #s are too many already. What did the one study "guess" about feeding the rest of the world the way that the US feeds itself it would take farmable areas equal to 4 Earths?
That study alone, even if it is off by a factor of 2, is reason that we should start preparing for life beyond this planet. Unless there are some drastic protocols put in place to curb population growth, artificial or natural, we're going to exhaust our home sooner rather than later.
As far as travelling to the stars, it won't be as hard as thought. I mean prior to Apollo the conventional wisdom said we'd never be able to get to the Moon because of all the weight we'd carry. Guess what, we got there... at least so we're told! ;-) The easiest way to realize that we'll be able to get to the stars is this simple question:
Under 1g constant acceleration, how long will it take to reach the speed of light or near the speed of light?
Ready for the answer, less than 1 year. Nuclear physicist Stanton Friedman mentioned that, and being the skeptic that I am I did the math numerous times and he was right.
The cost to go to the stars will actually be less than projected/feared. In adjusted dollars it'll cost far less than Columbus' voyage to the new world.
1st we have to figure out how to reach the speed of light. I think I found a cheap flux capacitor for under $300
http://www.moviereplicasdirect.com/back-to-the-future-flux-capacitor-unlimited-edition/
A starship would reach .999c in 353.5 days at constant 1g acceleration - to an observer in Earth's frame of reference. It would only take 15.8 days in the astronaut's frame of reference on board the starship due to relativistic time dilation. See my post above - if a starship could achive .999c, a one-way trip to alpha centauri would only take approximately 86 days from the astronaut's frame of reference.
As Jim points out, the trick is getting to a significant percentage of the speed of light. Here are the one-way trip times in the astronaut's frame of reference based on the percent of c achieved:
Percent of c - Days
0.99 - 96.1
0.99 - 273.2
0.90 - 899.4
0.75 - 1,560.6
0.50 - 2,873.5
0.25 - 6,168.3
I'm not sure a flux capicator will be enough, we may need to find some dilithium crystals.
This article just ruined my day.
On the other hand, can't they develop a craft for just moving around our own solar system? Nothing super capable or fast or anything. Kinda like a traveling space station? You know - strap a couple of engines on that thing and badda bing, we're on the Moon. Over time they can add more to it, making it bigger, switching out engines for more efficient ones... and badda bang we're on Mars. Pretty soon, we got a slow moving Solar System Ship Enterprise but hey, it's progress. It's the International Space Station only bigger and with more powerful batteries. And with a basketball court. Wouldn't that be fun in space?
I really fail to see the point of this article. It treats the general public like children, telling them not to expect much for the near future... something we are already painfully aware of.
The subject of creating a means to explore the universe should be talked about; it should be an inspiration for the average joe and scientist alike and not some playtoy for media writers whose only ambition is to strike imagination and vision from the human vocabulary.
Correction: Sister Mary Franklin just ruined my day. Seriously, I had a balloon here and it just deflated and fell to the floor upon loading this screen. Also the flowers on my desk just wilted. And - oh look at that, it just started raining. Thanks. A LOT. =(
It will take 100,000 years to reach the nearest star system with current technology.
If you get a chance to rent or see Cosmic Voyage, it's great. Narrated by Morgan Freeman
http://tinyurl.com/3sumqjv
Traveling to another star system is an engineering problem, not a problem with ethics. Does anyone remember the 1980s when it was predicted that nuclear fusion would be possible in less than 30 years? The truth is that no one can predict what the next big breakthrough will be. We can quantify what it will take to build a starship, but the hard work of R&D and manufacturing are not so easy to pin down. I believe that mankind will travel to other star systems. The closest star system with an Earth-like planet will be very far away. Men will build giant habitat space colonies in these other star systems from the materials available. These new destinations will act as jumping off points for other missions to star systems farther out. My guess is that mankind will probably terra-form a planet orbiting another star system before they ever find one like Earth and that will be way that the Milky Way galaxy will be colonized by man.
Travelling to the stars is the biggest ponzi scam ever. You want people to invest in something that will never be ready in their lifetime, must less ever occur. No one has ever taken any large mass and accelerated it to the speed of light; even near speed of light acceleration would present consequences that will be gravely detrimental for large mass to overcome. Therefore anything less (attainable speeds could be 20 to 30 thousand miles per hour) will change the expected flight time from 3 light years (at 11,176,920 mph) by a factor of 373 or 1,118 years (at 30,000 mph).
Not even considering the state of the economy, who would want to invest in an idea that has little to no chance for success? I don't want my tax dollars invested in this ponzi scheme.
Sorry my math was a little off - 3 light years (at 182,262 m/sec or 11,176,920 m/min or 670,615,200 mph). Therefore that changes by a factor of 22,354 or 67,062 years (at 30,000).
Guess I got to absorbed in trying to make my point.
This near earth asteroid that is so close would be a type of ship or how
about an instrument package to get out there find where it is going and follow
the next time it goes around our neck of the verse
This near earth asteroid that is so close would be a type of ship or how about an instrument package to get out there find where it is going and follow the next time it goes around our neck of the verse
I find it disturbing that the comment on here with the highest number of votes is advocating the barring of "religious people" from interstellar space travel. It just enforces that the so called "high minded" people who want to travel to other worlds are the same people standing in the way of the total cooperation of the human race. The very thing that is necessary to pool our resources to accomplish something of the magnitude of interstellar travel. As soon as we can recognize and accept the differences in other people, and focus on what makes us the same, not what makes us different, then we will see the human race truly flourish. Not only on Earth, but beyond our own solar system.
Interesting - I take the opposite viewpoint. Send the "religious people" for interstellar space travel as only hope will get them through the generations of travel before them.
First, we need to Terraform our own planet. Terraforming is just a fancy word for technological climate change. Too bad we can't seem to figure out how to Terraform with any long term benefits, rather we just plod along and create dust bowls, flood damaged coastal cities and extinct species. Oh well, I think we could start by building a pipeline from the Mississippi watershed, pump any flood-stage water over the continental divide, and supply the drought-stricken west with much needed water. Secondly we need to harvest algae on the surface instead of fossil fuels to supply our car-centric societal needs to travel. After these steps are achieved, we might have economies of scale that could actually explore more scientific things like inter-solar system travel, then interstellar travel. Baby steps, crawl first then look out for any large objects we might trip over!
Terraforming a planet is complete science fiction. If the planet can not hold an atmosphere, then it won't be influenced by such efforts. If the planet's atmosphere is posionous, it is because it is the planet's make-up. If the planet is too cold or too hot, it is because of its proximity within the solar system.
You're only hope is a sealed biodome!
Well, with the collapse of capitalism, due to the occupy protests, I'm sure we'll be able to finance whatever scientific explorations or endeavors we would like. We are going to need a way to communicate over large distances, kinda like a solar system wide GPS system. Then we'll need a ship big enough to go there in, so we'll send robots to the International Space Station that will build a star ship in outer space. Figure it takes 50 years to build, so during those 50 years we send out probes to the nearest solar systems to check out and report back if there is anything worth going there for.
The nearest solar systems are over 10 to 30 light years away. It would take over 200,000 years to reach it (at attainable max speed of 30,000 mph). So what's the point ?
Um, the answer to 'too far away' is, as always, 'go faster.'
The rest, is engineering...
The conundrum to 'go faster' is at some point it is beyond engineering. Mind you, Special Relativity works, just not in this way on mass. Mass increases with acceleration – specifically via its density (not its size). The reality is that multi-molecular based mass objects/entities can not be accelerated to even close the speed of light or beyond because of the consequences of warping the SpaceTime condition that defines it current existence. So for increasing acceleration to be maintained, mass takes on its own gravitational inertia. Speed of Light acceleration is not just a warp in SpaceTime, but rather a trap in SpaceTime (liken to a black hole) in which the accelerated matter is attempting to turn in on itself relative to the perspective of our SpaceTime reference. So while matter is internally accelerated, it is externally decelerated within its own dilated Time.
And this is at only approximately half to three quarters the acceleration of light speed. Anything beyond this point and the specificity of the mass entity is torn apart, reorganizing its matter to compensate for its inertial frame of SpaceTime reference. In a sense, it doesn't matter how one reaches such an accelerated state (i.e. accelerated via blackhole traction or accelerated via energy thrust), its consequences are the same. Time stops and the radiated energy matter is lost to the pre-existing fabric of SpaceTime in which it resides. There is no longer a uniqueness to the matter that was once a specific mass entity, and there is no blueprint to reassemble what's left of the residual density of of that matter.
The consequence of speed of light acceleration is demonstarted well upon the event horizon of a black hole. While the amplified density of the black hole is consistent with our understanding of mass, the real expectation of singular mass object existing within a black hole is not really necessary. Whereupon a black hole is related as a relative warp in our SpaceTime, the escaping radiated energy is a signature of condensed plasma. Condensed plasma can be related as matter without specific mass volume, but still able to maintain variable density.
The condense plasma at the center of a black hole doesn't need to absorb light, it just needs to inhibit the atomic interations that form light radiation (similar to photoionizaton); thus a black hole in born (except for the fact that it is emitting other kinds of radiation). Further evidence of this condition was announced 6 years ago when two Italian researchers pored through a series of black hole observations (taken over about five years) to separate its X-ray emissions into those belched by powerful polar jets and those originating from a disk of material swirling around the central focus of the black hole's maw (a sided perspective of a black hole).
We built the CAP canal and the California Canal, the Hoover Dam and several thousand more large projects across the planet already. This in fact is causing climate changes, in other words, it is Terraforming. Not to mention all the greenhouse gases we've added to the atmosphere. Scientists have actually looked into causing a volcanic eruption, and backed off when they realized they could not control the magnitude of such an artifically induced eruption. Urbanization across the planet has definately changed the environment in which we live. So, I would say that Terraforming is not science fiction, but rather the reality we live in today. Now to Terraform Mars, that would be science fiction, and a dome or underground caves I agree would be the best option there, albeit rather boring after some time.
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.
---------------
Umm, like we COULD have started taking these little steps back in the 1970's after we did the moon landing. Say maybe build a moon base? But no....
I don't think that we need to wait all that long to begin this project. Sure it would nice to have "Warp Drive and Anti-Gravitation Devices, but I think we could get buy with some advance planning. I'd look for earth orbit crossing Comets.
I'd use the comets to shield the advance supply probes and the "Human" cargo probe. Use the comets up completely with their encounter with the sun to produce a HUGE gravity kick. Then hopefully use some of the gas or ice giants on the way out.
Also use a solar sail after you used up your comet, as you approach your gravity kicks, stow your sail. Redeploy sail after your encounter. Use comets in advance, of the human launch to send out supplies in advance, so you can rendezvous at speed w/ the supply probes.
I'm not a engineer so I don't know if it's more efficent to fly the mission crew out to Jupiter to sling around the planet to match speed w/ the comet. Or whether it's more efficent for a direct approach from a earth launch for the crew.
At any rate I think that's a much quicker way to the stars
Kinda went over that in earlier comment. Asteriods have been calculated at speeds from 10,000 up to 30,000 mph. For example of 3 light years (at 182,262 m/sec or 11,176,920 m/min or 670,615,200 mph). Therefore that changes by a factor of 22,354 or 67,062 years (at 30,000).
However, the nearest solar systems with planets are anywhere from 10 to 30 light years away. At 10 light years distance, tt would take over 200,000 years to reach it (at attainable max speed of 30,000 mph). So what's the point ?
Ben Rich, former head of the Lockheed Skunk Works, stated in public that the US military already possessed interstellar craft before his death in the 1990s. This entire article was meant to keep your expectations and speculations low-balled, just like with the rest of our "space program". The government will leave everybody strapping multi-ton bombs to their a$$e$ to acheive a mere low orbit at extreme risk to life and limb while those in our secret space programs jump into electro-gravitic (or other) craft and do the same safely and quicker. Many of the "UFOs" spotted are our own craft. And YES! I do believe that.
Missouri.
That, plus what Sagan said about extraordinary claims...
I want a Star Gate network and I want it now.
Bill4,
Did you mean a network to televise Star Gate the show (cause I am soo bummed they canceled that show!) or actual Star Gate type devices on other planets?
What a bunch of BS!
Read my lips, the speed of light (energy) is constant! We are not going any where.
Those valuable resources are better spent on Mother Earth.
There's a lot of valuable resources in our solar system, which eventually will be easier to get to than drilling a few thousand miles down. So we might as well start working on it before we lack the modern industrial base to do so.
People used to think we could never reach space & we know Einstein was wrong.. Never say never
Get a ticket, it's going to be one hell of a ride!