Starship Asterisk*

OMG!!! They all look like TRIANGLES to me....

:---[===] *

Aurora by Kim Stanley Robinson fictionally writes of a multi-generational space voyage and the burden it places on those who didn't get a vote to undertake the problems of lifetimes in space. Quite thought provoking.

geckzilla wrote:

heehaw wrote:Don't bother to launch a probe to this planet. A complete and utter waste of effort. Why? Because it would take SO long to get there, we humans would have send MUCH MUCH better and FASTER probes later, like 10 years from now, or 110 years from now. You'd be launching museum exhibits.

Keeping and maintaining the ability to communicate with a probe on such a long term mission remains a problem whether it's launched a decade from now or a century.

It may be a trivial problem a century from now, however.

Chris Peterson wrote:It may be a trivial problem a century from now, however.

You think we'll reach some kind of point where computer hardware and software is more or less steady? Or perhaps there will be only robots and they'll be much better at this than us.

Fred the Cat wrote:Aurora by Kim Stanley Robinson fictionally writes of a multi-generational space voyage and the burden it places on those who didn't get a vote to undertake the problems of lifetimes in space. Quite thought provoking.

I enjoyed that one a lot, Fred. Quite a sobering account of what could happen during the voyage as well as at its end. Those who go first will be very brave indeed, or very poor, I suppose.

Rob

Wow how excited folks get without really thinking it through.............Of course this is interesting work and somehow inspiring but it's been pretty obvious for years that our solar system can't be unique. Giant gas clouds congeal into big lumps of hot plasma with the remains spinning around it eventually congealing into colder lumps of rock, etc - planets in other words. Surely no one here thought the laboratory result based around Sol would not yield a very similar result to the ones based around the Proxima labs, the Orion labs, the etc labs ?

But it all takes huge amounts of time: in the excitement, most fail to note that our chances of coinciding in time are phenomenally small.

OK so there are lumps of rock out there that wobble stars but which do we message if we hope for a reply ? some talk of analysing gases on exoplanets, Methane, oxygen and even pollutants but Homo Sapiens have been aware for about 70,000 years, 'civilised' for about 5,000 and polluting for about 100 whereas our solar system is 4,500,000,000 years old and the universe 14,800,000,000 years old. Our chances of finding alien life through atmospheric pollutants on any one exoplanet thereby start at about 100:10,000,000,000 (or 1millionth of 1%)...........as close to zero as makes no difference The oldest dinosaurs (methane producers) are only 200 million which would give us a 1:50 chance of coinciding in the vastness of time.

Conclusion We need to get much better at finding methane before we start sending messages, probes or even the Starship Enterprise to no-one.
PS don't we have enough challenges here on Terra ?

Fred the Cat wrote:Aurora by Kim Stanley Robinson fictionally writes of a multi-generational space voyage and the burden it places on those who didn't get a vote to undertake the problems of lifetimes in space. Quite thought provoking.

And the Robinson family set off for Alpha Prime only to get Lost in Space

geckzilla wrote:

Chris Peterson wrote:It may be a trivial problem a century from now, however.

You think we'll reach some kind of point where computer hardware and software is more or less steady? Or perhaps there will be only robots and they'll be much better at this than us.

Robots are computer hardware and software. And in a century, I imagine that machines will be programming themselves. But the technology is likely to still be advancing. I don't think moving data over a few light years is all that difficult, especially given ample power, and I expect there will be very high power density solutions before then. The biggest problem is just getting there in a reasonable amount of time. I think we'll be able to send small probes at a significant fraction of the speed of light- 10% or even more. I don't know if there's any way that a probe can survive particle collisions at that speed, however. That might be a technological problem bordering on unfixable, at least for small probes.

Chris Peterson wrote:

Ann wrote:Proxima Centauri is a flare star. That means that it can suddenly release a sudden burst of energy that briefly makes it perhaps twice as bright as it normally is. That wouldn't be healthy for any surface-dwelling beings on Proxima Centauri b, but perhaps life could still exist and thrive underground.

That's not obvious. If the Sun occasionally doubled its intensity for a few seconds, I don't imagine it would have any significant impact on surface life. Looking at the entire biosphere, there's more than a twofold difference in solar intensity at any time.

I just grabbed that estimate of Proxima's brightening during flares, "twice as bright", out of thin air so to speak, because a quick googling didn't tell me how much it would brighten during flares.

But Proxima is indeed classified as a flare star, whereas the Sun isn't. And while we are unlikely to miss any upheavals on the Sun, we might well miss flares on Proxima - at least we may have done so in the past, before Proxima was so closely monitored.

Also the Earth is 150 million kilometers away from the Sun, whereas Proxima B is about 7 million kilometers away from Proxima. So not only is Proxima likely to brighten more during flares than the Sun does during flares in relation to each star's normal brightness, but the Earth is also twenty times farther away from its star than Proxima B, and is likely to suffer less from the upheavals of its Sun than the newly discovered planet of Proxima.

Ann

Chris Peterson wrote: ... That might be a technological problem bordering on unfixable, at least for small probes.

It's being thought about.
The interaction of relativistic spacecrafts with the interstellar medium (Aug 18, 2016)

Ann wrote:I just grabbed that estimate of Proxima's brightening during flares, "twice as bright", out of thin air so to speak, because a quick googling didn't tell me how much it would brighten during flares.

But Proxima is indeed classified as a flare star, whereas the Sun isn't. And while we are unlikely to miss any upheavals on the Sun, we might well miss flares on Proxima - at least we may have done so in the past, before Proxima was so closely monitored.

I don't know what the actual range of possibilities is. Certainly, the chart you posted only shows a bit less than double the flux. That should be quite harmless.

Also the Earth is 150 million kilometers away from the Sun, whereas Proxima B is about 7 million kilometers away from Proxima. So not only is Proxima likely to brighten more during flares than the Sun does during flares in relation to each star's normal brightness, but the Earth is also twenty times farther away from its star than Proxima B, and is likely to suffer less from the upheavals of its Sun than the newly discovered planet of Proxima.

I don't think the distance matters, since everything is normalized against the normal background flux.

heehaw wrote:Don't bother to launch a probe to this planet. A complete and utter waste of effort. Why? Because it would take SO long to get there, we humans would have send MUCH MUCH better and FASTER probes later, like 10 years from now, or 110 years from now. You'd be launching museum exhibits.

Not only it is a waste of time but on the path there are much interstellar matter. It is not even sure that a space probe can reach Proxima b without damage.

Thierry

Exoplanet detection is reaching into some new arenas with technology many might find quite innovative. They are literally combing the skies.

heehaw wrote:
Don't bother to launch a probe to this planet. A complete and utter waste of effort. Why? Because it would take SO long to get there, we humans would have send MUCH MUCH better and FASTER probes later, like 10 years from now, or 110 years from now. You'd be launching museum exhibits.

New Horizons had a relative velocity of 13.78 km/s when it zipped by Pluto.

A nominal Proxima b probe taking ~ 8,000 years would zip by Proxima b at 12 times New Horizons's speed and have at most perhaps an hour's worth of good data taking.

A practical futuristic Proxima b probe taking ~ 120 years would zip by Proxima b at 800 times New Horizons's speed and have at most perhaps a minute's worth of good data taking.

geckzilla wrote:
Keeping and maintaining the ability to communicate with a probe on such a long term mission remains a problem whether it's launched a decade from now or a century.

A probe that can last a century or more will have plenty of time after the encounter to transmit at a very very slow data rate.

neufer wrote:A practical futuristic Proxima b probe taking ~ 120 years would zip by Proxima b at 800 times New Horizons's speed and have at most perhaps a minute's worth of good data taking.

Of course, that assumes you don't brake. I have little doubt that within a few decades we'll have the propulsion technology to accelerate the entire trip, and could therefore arrive with zero relative velocity, and make the whole trip in decades (assuming the problem of collisions with interstellar particles can be solved).

Chris Peterson wrote:

neufer wrote:
A practical futuristic Proxima b probe taking ~ 120 years would zip by Proxima b at 800 times New Horizons's speed and have at most perhaps a minute's worth of good data taking.

Of course, that assumes you don't brake. I have little doubt that within a few decades we'll have the propulsion technology to accelerate the entire trip, and could therefore arrive with zero relative velocity, and make the whole trip in decades (assuming the problem of collisions with interstellar particles can be solved).

In a few decades

Even the Starchip Mission to Alpha Centauri has no way of accelerating much beyond the narrow laser beam neighborhood of Earth much less any ability to decelerate way out near Alpha Centauri.

neufer wrote:

Chris Peterson wrote:

neufer wrote:
A practical futuristic Proxima b probe taking ~ 120 years would zip by Proxima b at 800 times New Horizons's speed and have at most perhaps a minute's worth of good data taking.

Of course, that assumes you don't brake. I have little doubt that within a few decades we'll have the propulsion technology to accelerate the entire trip, and could therefore arrive with zero relative velocity, and make the whole trip in decades (assuming the problem of collisions with interstellar particles can be solved).

In a few decades :!: :!: :!:

Even the Starchip Mission to Alpha Centauri has no way of accelerating much beyond the narrow laser beam neighborhood of Earth much less any ability to decelerate way out near Alpha Centauri.

I think the Starchip approach is a joke.

Small probes could be sent under continuous acceleration using advanced ion thrusters and nuclear power sources. For that, we're talking substantially about engineering developments, not new science. So yes, decades.

Chris Peterson wrote:

neufer wrote:

Chris Peterson wrote:
Of course, that assumes you don't brake. I have little doubt that within a few decades we'll have the propulsion technology to accelerate the entire trip, and could therefore arrive with zero relative velocity, and make the whole trip in decades (assuming the problem of collisions with interstellar particles can be solved).

In a few decades

Even the Starchip Mission to Alpha Centauri has no way of accelerating much beyond the narrow laser beam neighborhood of Earth much less any ability to decelerate way out near Alpha Centauri.

I think the Starchip approach is a joke.

The Starchip approach is NOT a joke.

Rather it is a convenient cover story for a (HGE) investment in an ICBM/satellite defense system
(a la the Hughes Glomar Explorer:)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GSF_Explorer wrote:
<<The Hughes Glomar Explorer (HGE, later GSF Explorer), was a deep-sea drillship platform initially built for the United States Central Intelligence Agency Special Activities Division secret operation Project Azorian to recover the sunken Soviet submarine K-129, lost during April 1968. Hughes Glomar Explorer (HGE) was built between 1973 and 1974, by Sun Shipbuilding and Drydock Co. for more than US$350 million. Hughes told the media that the ship's purpose was to extract manganese nodules from the ocean floor. This marine geology cover story became surprisingly influential, causing many others to examine the idea. But in sworn testimony in United States district court proceedings and in appearances before government agencies, Global Marine executives and others associated with Hughes Glomar Explorer project maintained unanimously that the ship could not be used for any economically viable ocean mineral operation.>>

Chris Peterson wrote:
Small probes could be sent under continuous acceleration using advanced ion thrusters and nuclear power sources. For that, we're talking substantially about engineering developments, not new science. So yes, decades.

That's the approach I was assuming with my nominal Proxima b probe taking ~ 8,000 years (without deceleration). But we'll have manned bases on Mars before anyone (even GNOME ANN) attempts to send a probe to a star system.

neufer wrote:
That's the approach I was assuming with my nominal Proxima b probe taking ~ 8,000 years (without deceleration). But we'll have manned bases on Mars before anyone (even GNOME ANN) attempts to send a probe to a star system.

Who?

Ann

As long as we're talking "beyond present capabilities" let me throw out a really far-fetched idea. As we know little about the precise nature of dark matter and its ability to interact with "our" matter how can we know how it interacts with time? It could be quite convenient should we eventually find a way to surround a vessel with dark matter to zip it to and fro exhibiting little interaction with interstellar particles and time.

"Beam me to Proxima b, Scotty. Yesterday!"

Fred the Cat wrote:As long as we're talking "beyond present capabilities" let me throw out a really far-fetched idea. As we know little about the precise nature of dark matter and its ability to interact with "our" matter how can we know how it interacts with time? It could be quite convenient should we eventually find a way to surround a vessel with dark matter to zip it to and fro exhibiting little interaction with interstellar particles and time.

"Beam me to Proxima b, Scotty. Yesterday!"

So that's what warp drive is!

It is really dark drive!

My second Asterisk* shock in two hours or so...!

Ann

Ann wrote:

neufer wrote:
That's the approach I was assuming with my nominal Proxima b probe taking ~ 8,000 years (without deceleration). But we'll have manned bases on Mars before anyone (even GNOME ANN) attempts to send a probe to a star system.

Who?

http://asterisk.apod.com/viewtopic.php? ... 09#p261308

neufer wrote:

Ann wrote:

neufer wrote:
That's the approach I was assuming with my nominal Proxima b probe taking ~ 8,000 years (without deceleration). But we'll have manned bases on Mars before anyone (even GNOME ANN) attempts to send a probe to a star system.

Who?

http://asterisk.apod.com/viewtopic.php? ... 09#p261308

Ann

A radio announcer filled my ears with the notion tht with the current state of rocketry, we can get there in 50 yeara.

ta152h0 wrote:
A radio announcer filled my ears with the notion tht with the current state of rocketry, we can get there in 50 years.

That would probably refer to the Starchip Mission to Alpha Centauri.