Sending probe to nearest star.

pyoko · Jun 5, 2007

I believe that we have to have a contingency plan: if we never find a way to travel at huge velocities. This means that the sooner we send a robotic probe to A-Centauri (or wherever), the sooner it will come back (or send a signal back to us). What if waiting for 10 000 years is the _only_ way to achieve this. Then we might as well get it started. I don't think the probe itself is anything beyond our technology to make. (couldn't find a similar post, sorry if I missed it) <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> -pyoko the duck It is by will alone I set my mind in motion. </div>

MeteorWayne · Jun 5, 2007

It might not be beyond our technology, but it IS beyond what "we" are willing to pay for, sadly. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> But the Krell forgot one thing John. Monsters. Monsters from the Id. I really, really, really, really miss the "first unread post" function </div>

pyoko · Jun 5, 2007

I don't think a weak ion drive would be that expensive. And it would last for thousands of years. The probe itself would not need to be much more complex than one of the Mars probes. Or do you mean even if it were similar cost as a Martian probe, that is already too much to pay? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> -pyoko the duck It is by will alone I set my mind in motion. </div>

MeteorWayne · Jun 5, 2007

It might not be too much to pay for me or you, but the American public won't even tell their legislature to spend what is needed to keep track of the earth, and send those probes to Mars, or find exoplanets. Remember, we have a war to pay for (NASA's annual budget every month or two) Man I'm cranky tonight <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> But the Krell forgot one thing John. Monsters. Monsters from the Id. I really, really, really, really miss the "first unread post" function </div>

pyoko · Jun 5, 2007

And yet the Mars probes _did_ get sent. Are you saying that the fact that we will never see the results in our lifetime is the deciding factor? That would make sence, since we all do things that have little or no regard for future generations. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> -pyoko the duck It is by will alone I set my mind in motion. </div>

Boris_Badenov · Jun 5, 2007

Sending a probe to another star that takes 1000's of years to get there would be a difficult sell to politicians. There is no technology that we have that could be guaranteed to last for that length of time. The Voyager probes will eventually make it out of the Solar System & could conceivably reach the nearest star that lies in the path they are traveling, but IIRC they will take 75,000 years to get there. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div align="center">. </div><div align="center">Never roll in the mud with a pig. You'll both get dirty & the pig likes it.</div> </div>

3488 · Jun 5, 2007

Its not so much a technical challenge in reliability, but developing the means to get the probe there in an acceptable amount of time. IMO just using a super velocity trajectory will not be enough. There is a small, but chance of many intersteller 'rogue' objects, sunless planets, their moons, asteroids & comets, so this probe would need to be able to 'see or sense' what is ahead. MeteorWayne is correct. The gp would probably not support such a venture. I am off to sleep now as it is very late or early here depending on your viewpoint. Andrew Brown. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> "I suddenly noticed an anomaly to the left of Io, just off the rim of that world. It was extremely large with respect to the overall size of Io and crescent shaped. It seemed unbelievable that something that big had not been visible before". Linda Morabito on discovering that the Jupiter moon Io was volcanically active. Friday 9th March 1979.http://www.launchphotography.com/ http://anthmartian.googlepages.com/thisislandearthhttp://web.me.com/meridianijournal </div>

MeteorWayne · Jun 5, 2007

Good morning Andrew, see you in my morning <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> But the Krell forgot one thing John. Monsters. Monsters from the Id. I really, really, really, really miss the "first unread post" function </div>

pyoko · Jun 5, 2007

First of all, I have to say that an engine capable of lasting thousands of years is not beyond current technology (I'll citate later). Secondly, I do not think that there is much chance of hitting 'rogue planets' and such. Even proven objects are darn hard to hit with precice calculations. In the event of such an unlikely event, the 'robot' part of the probe will handle it. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> -pyoko the duck It is by will alone I set my mind in motion. </div>

MeteorWayne · Jun 5, 2007

Were you replying to any of us? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> But the Krell forgot one thing John. Monsters. Monsters from the Id. I really, really, really, really miss the "first unread post" function </div>

pyoko · Jun 5, 2007

Sorry for the reply screw-up. I was replying 3488 and Boris. I'm old fashioned: the next post in line is a reply to anything above it. Sorry. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> -pyoko the duck It is by will alone I set my mind in motion. </div>

MeteorWayne · Jun 5, 2007

OK, NP. What engine do we have that is guaranteed to last )tens of) thousands of years, since the Industrial age is a few hundred years old at best? I'd be interested to see your citations. Wayne <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> But the Krell forgot one thing John. Monsters. Monsters from the Id. I really, really, really, really miss the "first unread post" function </div>

pyoko · Jun 5, 2007

I really put my foot in my mouth on this, but I did find this: http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewpr.html?pid=12209 It says 5 years. This is a long way from the thousands that i professed. But I still remember hearing about an engine that ran as an ion drive that was very weak (compared to the drive in my link) and could run for the length of time I profess. I will try to find it (yet I already suspect that such low thrust will make a craft reach the nearest star in millions of years rather than just thousands). <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> -pyoko the duck It is by will alone I set my mind in motion. </div>

MeteorWayne · Jun 5, 2007

Actually low thrust can accelerate a craft to a significant part of C, given enough time.. But again, how do you know it will run for a long time, and where will the fuel (even if it's just mass to shoot out the rear end, and the power to do so) come from? It can be done, but at a cost the taxpayers would not stand for. This taxpayer would, but most would not. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> But the Krell forgot one thing John. Monsters. Monsters from the Id. I really, really, really, really miss the "first unread post" function </div>

centsworth_II · Jun 5, 2007

"Are you saying that the fact that we will never see the results in our lifetime is the deciding factor?" The probe should not be sold that way. It should be designed to provide continuous feedback on it's environment from its launch on. Flybys of one or more planets or other solar system bodies on the way out, detailed study of the solar wind, the heliopause, and beyond. Continual study of the interstellar medium. Also, it should be designed to look for and study the "Pioneer effect," if it exists. If it also gets to and returns data from another stellar system thousands of years from now, great. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

MeteorWayne · Jun 5, 2007

That makes sense. Still after a few decades the return time for data exceeds the current generaton's lifetime..... <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> But the Krell forgot one thing John. Monsters. Monsters from the Id. I really, really, really, really miss the "first unread post" function </div>

chyten · Jun 5, 2007

Any manned or unmanned interstellar craft, which would take centuries (let alone millenia) to reach its objective, presents an obvious problem: it is very likely to be overtaken by a much faster craft launched decades or even centuries later. So building and launching such a beast may be pointless - but if we keep waiting for faster technology to materialize, it may never do so without incremental development. I think a good rule of thumb is - never launch anything that would take more than 50 years to reach its destination. TAU (Thousand Astronomical Units) mission is thus a valid objective. By the time it reaches Inner Oort Cloud, it will be obsolete, but not ridiculously so, and it will do good science along the way. A "50 year probe" every generation (say, every 25 years), each one faster and more capable than the one before, would be a good incremental buildup to a true interstellar mission.

deapfreeze · Jun 6, 2007

Actually low thrust can accelerate a craft to a significant part of C, given enough time.. But again, how do you know it will run for a long time? Why couldn't we accelerate as close to c as we can get run until fuel is gone and then coast? I remember doing this as a kid on a bike. We go as fast as we can and then coast. We could cover alot of distance this way. It might not be as acurate for hitting something but should continue to travel in the same direction with a little drift I think? <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> William ( deapfreeze ) Hooperhttp://deapfreeze-amateur-astronomy.tk/ </div>

dragon04 · Jun 6, 2007

Actually, it's not an impractical scenario. A nuclear pulse drive such as envisioned for the original Orion Project gets a ship to .1c and makes the Centauri system in 40 years Earth time. Voyager is still returning data nigh on 30 years with decades old technology and modest power supply. Give an unmanned Centauri mission such propulsive capability, a sufficiently powerful or narrow enough beam transmitter and some measure of good fortune, and we're receiving telemetry in 47 years or so. Even barring transmission capability, a sufficiently "fueled" Orion goes to Centauri, observes, and returns to the solar system in a century provided that no catastrophic failures occur. It's not beyond our engineering capability to do this tomorrow. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> "2012.. Year of the Dragon!! Get on the Dragon Wagon!". </div>

owenander · Jun 6, 2007

I disagree, just think about this. It would take a very long time to reach Alpha C, possibly thousands of years, I could do the math, but I'm tired. In 10-50-100 years we will easily be able to increase the speed of vehicles with advancements in technology (specially if the private sector continues to grow so much). In the short term we need to focus on supporting the private sector so they can increase access to LEO and expand our reach in our own solar system.

jaxtraw · Jun 6, 2007

A better solution might be to go by Valkyrie...

vogon13 · Jun 6, 2007

You did pretty good there, with a few caveats . . . Most of the design work and improvements envisioned for an interstellar Orion vehicle have assumed an enormous payload to establish a viable colony, and transport of up to 50,000 human beings. Additionally, the acceleration up to .05 to .1C might take decades, rather lengthening the voyage. Rescoping the project into a probe is an interesting challenge. Be deleting 95% of the payload, we would be looking at some interesting trade-offs. We can send a smaller pusher plate, smaller impulse module magazine, and have a higher top speed. The acceleration phase can be shortened too. Essentially, we are looking at modding an elephant into a mosquito. IIRC, (this is going back 30 years to when I heard this) by sending a probe to Barnard's Star, a relatively small deflection at Barnards's Star would allow the probe an extended mission to another star (sorry don't remember which one) about 20 light years further on. Anyone recall which star that is ? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> TPTB went to Dallas and all I got was Plucked !!So many people, so few recipes !!Let's clean up this stinkhole !! </div>

robnissen · Jun 6, 2007

Interesting thread with a mix of good ideas along with statements that are somewhat inaccurate to flatly wrong. First, as of today, I think this idea is a complete non-starter. The fastest current probe (New Horizons) is traveling about 50K mph, or roughly 1/10,000 C. Thus, it would take about 40,000 years to get to the current location of Alpha Centauri, but AC is moving, I don't know whether it is getting closer or farther away from us, but in any event we would have to point at where it will be in 40K years. But it is ridiculous to start a project with a 40k time line -- that is four times how long civilization has existed, and nearly half the time homo sapiens have existed. (Having said that, there is one current project with a 50K time line, a space ship/time capsule set to crash back into earth in 50,000 years as a way of communicating with our descendants, but that is very different than setting up a project to last 40K years.) There is a small, but chance of many intersteller 'rogue' objects, sunless planets, their moons, asteroids & comets, so this probe would need to be able to 'see or sense' what is ahead. Partly accurate. The odds are very small, because space is very big. That is why we have successfully sent probes through the asteroid belt, which is MUCH more densely packed than interstellar space. The problem is not hitting planets, the perhaps intractable problem is hitting microscopic particles if we could accelerate a probe to .1c. There have been several ideas proposed to get around this problem -- my personal fav. is a large sheet of ice in front of the probe to "catch" the particles, but we currently have no idea whether any of these proposals would work. It should be designed to provide continuous feedback on it's environment from its launch on. Flybys of one or more planets or other solar system bodies on the way out, detailed stud

MeteorWayne · Jun 6, 2007

Rob: MW:"Still after a few decades the return time for data exceeds the current generaton's lifetime. Rob:Wrong, the return time for data could never be more than four years for any probe between here and AC, the data always travels at C. You missed my point. I know the communication time would only be a few years, but I'm including the time to get there. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> But the Krell forgot one thing John. Monsters. Monsters from the Id. I really, really, really, really miss the "first unread post" function </div>

vogon13 · Jun 6, 2007

You were doing so well there . . . Dyson (practically the inventor of Orion) had no qualms about decelerating the ship. The human crewed Enceladus mission was envisioned as setting down on Enceladus and returning to earth, where the craft would be refit for another mission. Decelaration would occur during braking into orbit around Saturn, landing on Enceladus, and returning to earth. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> TPTB went to Dallas and all I got was Plucked !!So many people, so few recipes !!Let's clean up this stinkhole !! </div>

Sending probe to nearest star.

pyoko

Guest

MeteorWayne

Guest

pyoko

Guest

MeteorWayne

Guest

pyoko

Guest

Boris_Badenov

Guest

3488

Guest

MeteorWayne

Guest

pyoko

Guest

MeteorWayne

Guest

pyoko

Guest

MeteorWayne

Guest

pyoko

Guest

MeteorWayne

Guest

centsworth_II

Guest

MeteorWayne

Guest

chyten

Guest

deapfreeze

Guest

dragon04

Guest

owenander

Guest

jaxtraw

Guest

vogon13

Guest

robnissen

Guest

MeteorWayne

Guest

vogon13

Guest

Similar threads

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Moderators online

Share this page