Alpha Centauri Explorer

[ehs40]

it is a good idea but it is a long way off

 

[vidar]

The distance to Alpha Centauri is 4.35 light-years. Light spends 4.35 years for the journey. The theory of relativity by Einstein prohibits ships to enter c (speed of light). Science hopes to achieve 0.1 c which makes the journey 50 years. <br /><br />The issues of restrictive treaties are discussed at ‘claim moon land?’ There are other options for US than to withdraw from the 1967 UN Space Treaty.<br />

 

[vidar]

The Alpha Centauri system is interesting in itself. This tipple star system would provide a lot of interesting information on an ACE journey. <br /><br />The star system might be rather similar to ours, though, but with an ignited Uranus, and a red dwarf in the Oort cloud. Even with three stars the system is probably stable for planets like ours. <br /><br />( see http://homepage.sunrise.ch/homepage/schatzer/Alpha-Centauri.html )

 

[kdavis007]

I agree.. Too bad we can't do it sooner....

 

[john_316]

Yeah this ia agreeable here...<br /><br />But getting there is the time consuming question. how many nukes will be set off to get that rocket ship up and moving to over 100,000 to 250,000 mph and continuing from there.<br /><br />I do not agree with Einstiens Law that the Speed of Light cant be achieved or broken. I think some experiments already broke those laws.<br /><br /><img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" />

 

[ehs40]

its not a law its a theroy if it was a law then it would hold true like newtons laws of gravity this is not to be true something cannot become a law until it is proven to be true so we will have to wait (i am hoping he is wrong about the light barrier not being able to be broken)

 

[vidar]

I think this is an interesting spin-off debate. <br /><br />Einstein’s theories are postulates. That means that it is claimed to be true, but neither been proved nor disapproved. The theory of relativity that says it is mathematically impossible for spaceships to break c (the speed of light). But has never been proven, and I think it never will.<br /><br />All the postulate has done till now, is setting up mental barriers for scientists. It has been as effective as the UN banning of ‘nukes in space’ and ‘claiming of national properties’.<br />

 

[cuddlyrocket]

This is incorrect. A scientific law is a theory that has been tested numerous times over a long period of time and has never been shown to be false. There is no requirement to prove it true.<br /><br />General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics have passed every test thrown at them over the last century. Their predictions have been experimentally shown accurate to at least one part in a trillion. They are both regarded as scientific laws, yet we know that they are contradictory - they cannot both be true. (By the way, Newton's 'law' of gravity has been shown to be false.)<br /><br />The phrase 'it's only a theory' is bandied about by the scientifically illiterate.

 

[hawkeye4640]

please tell me where to find where gravity has been proven false. I'd like to read that

 

[vidar]

There is now a spin-off debate called ‘Space Science & Astronomy / Superluminal space travel’

 

[cuddlyrocket]

I didn't say gravity has been proven false. I said Newton's Law of Gravity has been proven false - it was supplanted by the General Theory of Relativity

 

[vidar]

What I mean is; if a comet is knocked out of the Oort cloud, it could happen in a direction a little out of the planetary plane. If so, the comet could also be pulled by planets or the sun in an even greater angle off the planetary plane. Just a thought, but a comet does not necessarily have to originate from the angle its orbit is today.<br /><br />If the Oort cloud consists of molecules, this could be used as fuel for a Bussard ramjet. This would be an advantage rather than a disadvantage.<br /><br />A shield does not necessarily mean increased mass, energy requirements and complexity. As mentioned before: "Nanotubes" have 100 times the tensile strength of steel, but only 1/6 the weight. http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2005/27jul_nanotech.htm . <br />If the Oort cloud is not too dense, such material in the front might be enough.<br />

 

[dragon04]

I think you're confusing tensile strength with compressive strength. You need something that will not crush when impacted. Not something that can be stretched or bend under great force. <br /><br />That requires a more dense material to mitigate ablation of the shield. Nanotubes don't give you that quality.<br /><br />Another thing to consider is that carbon nanotubes conduct heat very well. That would be bad for a ship hitting particles at relativistic speeds. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <em>"2012.. Year of the Dragon!! Get on the Dragon Wagon!".</em> </div>

 

[hawkeye4640]

PROVEN false? Even Newton's Law of Gravity hasn't been PROVEN false unless they have done some kind of experiment of that, if so could you show link me to the paper or some information about it? I'm just interested that's all.

 

[cuddlyrocket]

Observations are inconsistent with the predictions of Newton's theory of gravity - thereby proving it false. As you're interested, you may wish to start with this article. (You can skip the equations at the beginning!)

 

[vidar]

Still there is the question of how dense is the clouds between the stars are. Are the clouds gainful fuel or are the clouds disnatures objects? I suppose the reality has to be tested out. <br /><br />Concerning the Oort cloud; I think it is believed to be a sphere created with during our sun’s formation. It is reasonable to think that the Alpha Centauri system has one or two of it own, unless the red dwarf has sucked it all up. <br /><br />Anyway the Oort clouds, we are in a galaxy’s spiral arm. I suppose it has some particles for us in-between the stars too. Then we are not talking about space anymore. Space is what you find between planets when their gravity has vacuum-cleaned it. In-between stars, there are clouds or mist. It is not vacuum-cleaned; - there is not vacuum at all, - right?<br />

 

[aa_institute]

* * * It is reasonable to think that the Alpha Centauri system has one or two of it own [Oort clouds] * * *<br /><br />I would tend to concur. I actually researched an article on that, about this time last year:<br /><br />http://www.astroscience.org/abdul-ahad/firstarktoalphacentauri/interstellar-propulsion.htm<br /><br />AA<br />http://www.publishedauthors.net/aa_spaceagent/

 

[dragon04]

"In-between stars, there are clouds or mist. It is not vacuum-cleaned; - there is not vacuum at all, - right?"<br /><br />Actually, a better term would be "gravity-cleaned" if you will.<br /><br />To illustrate, take 2 marbles, put them in a sealed container and draw out all the air. The marbles are in a vacuum. Just like space.<br /><br />Your container sits on a table in your den. The marbles lay on the bottom of the container. Earth's gravity attempts to pull those marbles out of the container.<br /><br />Forget interstellar clouds for a moment. A far more difficult thing to calculate would be the number of hydrogen (or any other) atoms, dust particles, etc in any given volume of interstellar space.<br /><br />For example, let's say that there are 1 million Hydrogen atoms in every cubic meter of space in which your probe will travel.<br /><br />To a craft such as Voyager 2, it's really not an issue due to the relatively low velocities involved. Voyager was hit by particles of a coronal mass ejection a few years back.<br /><br />But those particles were only hitting the probe at approximately 277 miles/second, which is roughly 1 million miles per hour.<br /><br />AT relativistic speeds, the consequences for Voyager 2 would have been dire.<br /><br />Another thing to consider would be the possible presence of anti-matter iin interstellar space.<br /><br />You seem to be only thinking in terms of the macroscopic. It would be difficult enough to avoid marble sized objects at relativistic speeds; I would think it perhaps imprudent to accelerate to relativistic speeds prior to entering relatively clear "interstellar space".<br /><br />And even then, with perhaps a million H2 atoms (for example) hitting your probe every second at .5c, the probabilities of mission success might be fairly low.<br /><br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <em>"2012.. Year of the Dragon!! Get on the Dragon Wagon!".</em> </div>

 

[vidar]

Thanks for the link, its interesting.<br />And the idea of an ark is fascinating.<br />But personally I think, the first ship should be a probe, unmanned and fuelled up.<br />

 

[aa_institute]

Yes, there will need to be a series of reconnaisance missions launched in advance that are robotic (un-manned) and propelled at high speed, to determine how tenious and how much uncharted material is likely to be drifting in the Oort cloud.<br /><br />In my fictional story, First Ark to Alpha Centauri, a number of these robotic platforms are operating at various distances in front of the ark, to act as critical "trailblazers" if you will, that chart a safe course line through the interstellar dark.<br /><br />AA<br />http://www.publishedauthors.net/aa_spaceagent/