Sending probe to nearest star.

[h2ouniverse]

Dr4,<br />I fully agree with you about the "why Centauri" question. To me the motivation for interstellar exploration (apart from SETI) is 1) to examine extrasolar stuff, 2) to spot for space habitat. <br /><br />1) But we know that many of solar system's planetesimals have been ejected since system's birth. And that Sun has passed close to many stars since then. All the stars currently close to Sun were not at all in Sun's neighbourhood one billion years ago (i.e. 5 galactic years). And the opposite way round. There is a high probability that several of the bodies currently orbiting Sun have formed around another star and have been ejected then captured. We may also have planemos, with speed larger than escape velocity, traveling currently close to Sun (say 10000 AU). That is still far closer than proxima centauri (about 267000 AU). So let's wait for programs like ALMA or GAIA to spot close cold objects. And determine an exo-target.<br /><br />2) As far as space habitat for longer term expansion, same issue. Either you spot an habitable planet, and there is a strong likelihood for it to host life: then we have no right to alter this environment. Or it is not, and then, in the "what if" scenario (the one where we are condemned to low speed, ejection of momentum travel )why looking for gravity wells? Escape velocities of more than 1km/s are such a pain! KB is fine for that (low escape velocity, H20, easily carvable surface materials, low radiation, rocks and metals, heavy organic compounds; just one drawback: need for nuclear or fusion generators, or giant solar arrays).<br /> <br />So I would put priority:<br />* for short term: on missions in outer solar system (classical exploration + search for life) combined with large space astronomy to image close exoplanets (<20 LY) and cold bodies (<10000 AU)<br />* for long term preparation: on more efficient propulsion means

 

[jaxtraw]

I'm just sitting here contemplating that I've posted links discussing the feasible interstellar spacecraft suggested by Pellegrino and Powell, the "Valkyrie", which solves most of the problems discussed here in elegant ways, and everybody's entirely ignored it in favour of vast star arks firing nuclear bombs out of their backsides, nanoprobes and gawd knows what, thus limiting the discussion to methods which either (a) will cost more than the entire GDP of the world for the next thousand years, or are (b) blue sky technologies that exist only in science fiction.<br /><br />Here's another link then, this time to a description on the BBC website thing.<br /><br />http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/h2g2/A11949195<br /><br />And here's Dr Pellegrino's "Trekkish" general reader level description on his own website-<br /><br />http://www.charlespellegrino.com/propulsion.htm<br /><br />"What makes it possible for the realities of scientific achievement (Valkyrie rockets) to catch up with the fiction (starships) is that Valkyrie is the ultralight of rockets, consisting mostly of naked magnetic coils and pods held together by tethers. Indeed, it can best be summed up as a kite (with magnetic field lines instead of paper sheets) that flies through space on a muon wind of its own creation. Earlier starship designs by space scientists Donald Goldsmith, Tobias Owen, and others yielded estimates that a journey to the nearest star would require 400 million tons of matter-antimatter fuel and would be barely capable of reaching ten percent lightspeed, leading to flight times of several decades. Such estimates arose from traditional rocket configurations (huge, reinforced towers, with engines welded to their feet), which resulted in prohibitively heavy, slow-moving vehicles. Thus did more than 99.7 percent of their mass become fuel. Our stripped down Valkyr

 

[h2ouniverse]

Sorry Jaxtraw but I have not read all posts.<br />OK now I have read your links. <br />Well sorry to say that but although this looks a very interresting concept, it is not that different from other revolutionary ideas floating around you would qualify of "blue sky SF". I would definitively put it in the category of "new propulsions" I mentionned in my previous posts, deserving development efforts. <br />I had the chance to visit (and go inside) a tokamak for nuclear fusion, two decades ago. As I stood where two weeks earlier million-degree nuclear reactions were taking place, I could contemplate the giant mag bottle needed to confine the plasma, with fileds of several Teslas. The walls were covered with carbon plates and a complex cooling system for the mag field was unable to confine neutral particles. I had to cross an enclosure of several meters of hafmium-loaded concrete, serving as a stopper to neutrons. And that is only for fusion! There you are talking about matter-antimatter annihilation that is a tremendous source of noxious radiation. So you would have to shield the passengers or even the robotics electronics of the main vessel. <br />As a reminder, we are currently having a hard time designing an Europa orbiter that lasts more than a few weeks, because of the huge level of radiations over there.<br /><br />Then comes the issue of mass-production and of storage of anti-hydrogen. <br />I do not think Valkyrie is the most launch-ready technology.<br /><br />It certainly deserves development effort though.<br /><br />

 

[jaxtraw]

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p> walls were covered with carbon plates and a complex cooling system for the mag field was unable to confine neutral particles. I had to cross an enclosure of several meters of hafmium-loaded concrete, serving as a stopper to neutrons.<p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br /><br />To answer this point- it's already been thought of. Because the payload is some distance behind the engine, pulled by the tether, all that's needed is a small tungsten shield which will cast a large shadow.<br /><br />It's not trying to sustain a confined fusion reaction. You're just annihilating matter and anti-matter and firing the products through a magnetic coil for thrust.<br /><br />The only real stumbling block is mass production of anti-matter- not that anyone yet has really tried optimising production of it. Accelerators are designed for scientific value, not industrial production <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" />

 

[MeteorWayne]

Uhh, another problem beyond industrial production of antimatter, is storage and transportation of industrial quantities of antimatter <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font color="#000080"><em><font color="#000000">But the Krell forgot one thing John. Monsters. Monsters from the Id.</font></em> </font></p><p><font color="#000080">I really, really, really, really miss the "first unread post" function</font><font color="#000080"> </font></p> </div>

 

[jaxtraw]

It might help to read the articles I've linked <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /><br /><br />"An antihydrogen atom is the antimatter twin of the more familiar hydrogen atom, but its electron (positron) is positively charged and its negatively charged proton (an antiproton) also has a charge opposite that of a normal hydrogen nucleus. Since matter and antimatter annihilate each other on contact, each converting 100 percent of its mass into energy and near-lightspeed particles (at which point even a tiny chip of protons can deliver a force equivalent to being struck by a New York City taxicab), and since each, on contact, releases enormous bursts of energy from literally microscopic amounts of propellant, one cannot simply fill a space shuttle's tanks with several tons of liquid antihydrogen and let it slosh around inside (Note: this would be bad).<br /><br />The only storage method that has a hope of working is solid antihydrogen, supercooled within one degree of absolute zero (within one Kelvin of –273 degrees C). At very low temperatures, antihydrogen condenses into 'white flake,' with an extremely low vaporization rate.<br /><br />Particles of solid antihydrogen can be suspended and held away from the 'pod' walls by electrostatic forces and/or magnetism. Within 0.0005 degrees K., antihydrogen appears sufficiently stable to allow storage and mixture, as microscopic fuel wafers, with actual matter, and although this manner of storage was once considered as the basis for a potential engine design, visions of outward bound starships blossoming into red-shifting novae raised too many hairs on the backs of our necks and led us to decide: 'Don't go there.' This, despite the fact that in 1984 we were discovering, to our surprise, that matter-antimatter reactants quickly flew apart, once the reaction began, making the reaction itself seemingly impossible to sustain.<br /><br />An almost identical problem faced colleagues trying to sustain controlled fusion: it worked only i

 

[dragon04]

I think you missed MW's point. That last reply of yours doesn't address the problem that there aren't big clouds of antihydrogen floating around anywhere nearby, so we have to make the stuff, And it takes ungodly long just to make and collect a tiny amount of it.<br /><br />Even if this Valkyrie engine works exactly as advertised, the designers don't discuss how long (with current techniques) it would take collect enough antimatter to run it on an interstellar mission or how to pick up more on the way for refueling.<br /><br />That's a bigger problem than the propulsion system itself. Work was done at Penn State University on an antimatter engine. And check this antimatter engine out.<br /><br />Let me pop in a quote from the article.<br /><br />[yellow"A rough estimate to produce the 10 milligrams of positrons needed for a human Mars mission is about 250 million dollars using technology that is currently under development"<br /><br />What they don't mention is how <b>long</b> it would take to produce and collect even 10 milligrams of the stuff.<br /><br />From what I understand, the only antimatter produced is at CERN and Fermilab. And they can only produce <b>nano</b>grams per year.<br /><br />For interstellar missions, grams would be needed. SO unless we had tens of thousands of CERN sized particle accelerators running around the clock, it would take thousands, millions or even billions of years to produce enough antihydrogen for a single mission to Centauri.<br /><br />Designing a working antimatter engine isn't the hurdle. Being able to create antimatter in meaningful quantities is the problem.<br /><br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <em>"2012.. Year of the Dragon!! Get on the Dragon Wagon!".</em> </div>

 

[vandivx]

"To me the quicker and most efficient way to send a probe to the nearest star is to develop new physics! "<br /><br />that's my view also, I see physics as sick discipline ailing for over half a century now and getting nowhere, problem is nobody want's to see new ideas unless its himself that is coming up with them, there is very strong one upmanship and fear that someone else might succeed and utmost efforts are dedicated to the task of shooting any new ideas down as soon as they appear and mainstream physics with its tenures and grant mechanism is locked in the traditional and conventional physics<br /><br />that's the reason for the space exploration gone asleep after haydays of 1960s and we today have really not much anything better than we had in those days to go spacefaring<br /><br />likely the stars might get explored one day but it won't be by launching physical probes that travel 'there' to look, new imaging methods of distant regions might be found that won't rely on optics catching photons that managed to make it here from there<br /><br />still some star going probes should be launched now in brave effort like what those Polynesians did when crossing the ocean of what Columbus did, even if they might fail we would be remembered as people that had the vision and guts to try and aspired to some ideals better than putting bacon on the table <br /><br />vanDivX <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[dragon04]

<font color="yellow">To me the motivation for interstellar exploration (apart from SETI) is 1) to examine extrasolar stuff, 2) to spot for space habitat.</font><br /><br />Both of these can and are being done (or soon to be done in the case of space based TPF telescopes) very economically without leaving the solar system.<br /><br />In particular, your second point of interest is one thing I discussed in my earlier reply.<br /><br />"Spotting for space habitat" would be a "backwards" approach considering the time it would take for even an Orion traveling at .1c <br /><br />The new generation of space telescopes will hopefully "spot the habitats" and give our imaginary probes we're discussing a target, as opposed to flying around the galaxy without a target and hoping to find one.<br /><br />My hopes are pinned on these TPF telescopes. If we detect a water bearing, terrestrial planet, or better yet one that is suspected to be life bearing, then maybe very serious work would begin on designing and building a mission to go check it out "in person".<br /><br />But again, time is the biggest issue we'll be facing. Every major component and system on such a ship will have to work for decades or centuries without failing.<br /><br />Redundant systems would up the probabilities. But that's additional mass and additional cost. We might well spend tens or hundreds of billions of dollars on something that could very well break down without hope of repair on its way out of the Solar System, or worse yet, a day before it reaches another star system.<br /><br />Now if we can build a ship or probe that can reach .5c, the chances become greatly enhanced that we could get a mission to an interstellar target within expected life cycles of its components and systems.<br /><br />But that gives rise to its own problems. The higher the velocity of our probe, the more shielding it will require. As I'm sure you're aware, space (even interstellar space) is anything but empty.<br /><br />Our probe w <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <em>"2012.. Year of the Dragon!! Get on the Dragon Wagon!".</em> </div>

 

[jaxtraw]

<font color="yellow">I think you missed MW's point.</font><br /><br />I think I "partially addressed it". Heh.<br /><br /><font color="yellow"> That last reply of yours doesn't address the problem that there aren't big clouds of antihydrogen floating around anywhere nearby, so we have to make the stuff, And it takes ungodly long just to make and collect a tiny amount of it. </font><br /><br />Well, to be fair we've never tried very hard. I can't remember who it was, but some scientist I remember discussing this, pointed out rightly that particle accelerators are designed for scientific research, not for volume production. Put some industrial engineers on the job and they'd have different goals to those designing for science. That doesn't mean of course they could suddenly be churning out a bucketful for 20p, but it does mean we don't really know how much better an "antimatter factory" might be.<br /><br /><font color="yellow">Even if this Valkyrie engine works exactly as advertised,</font><br /><br />Obviously it's a paper spaceship at the moment but that doesn't mean one needs to be sniffy about it. The "Orion" would take a lot of development from concept to working model, as did the basic chemical rocket.<br /><br /><font color="yellow"> the designers don't discuss how long (with current techniques) it would take collect enough antimatter to run it on an interstellar mission or how to pick up more on the way for refueling. </font><br /><br />Well they do, so I think you're not reading the articles before criticising them.<br /><br /><font color="yellow">That's a bigger problem than the propulsion system itself. Work was done at Penn State University on an antimatter engine. And check this antimatter engine out. <br /><br />Let me pop in a quote from the article. <br /><br />"A rough estimate to produce the 10 milligrams of positrons needed for a human Mars mission is about 250 million dollars using technology that is currently under developme</font>

 

[dragon04]

Certainly the best possible future lies in the study of high energy physics and newer, bigger, more powerful supercolliders to explore the science with.<br /><br />In the meantime, it's a case of walking before running as the saying goes, I think. We have a big back yard (the Solar System) that we've barely had a glance at so far.<br /><br />I think what we lack today is "focus" or what might be called "vision".<br /><br />We have so many competing programs. Manned vs. Unmanned being the most obvious, but we want to do so many different types of missions that obviously there will be "losers".<br /><br />The problem as I see it is that we fail to stick with a cohesive "path" of exploration. This year, we want to explore apples. Next year, we want to explore oranges. Then we move on to lemons, rutabagas, etc...<br /><br />I don't know that it wouldn't be better to explore all the apples first and then move on to the next item.<br /><br /><br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <em>"2012.. Year of the Dragon!! Get on the Dragon Wagon!".</em> </div>

 

[MeteorWayne]

"that's my view also, I see physics as sick discipline ailing for over half a century now and getting nowhere, problem is nobody want's to see new ideas unless its himself that is coming up with them"<br /><br />Really the problem is there are surprisingly few practical and useful ideas out there.<br />A lot of fluff, little hard science and engineering, IMHO. <br /><br />Edit:<br />Collecting Tonnes of antimatter, storing and transporting it counts as fluff in my book. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font color="#000080"><em><font color="#000000">But the Krell forgot one thing John. Monsters. Monsters from the Id.</font></em> </font></p><p><font color="#000080">I really, really, really, really miss the "first unread post" function</font><font color="#000080"> </font></p> </div>

 

[jaxtraw]

<font color="yellow">Collecting Tonnes of antimatter, storing and transporting it counts as fluff in my book.</font><br /><br />Maybe, but then so is travelling to Alpha Centauri on a flying bomb.<br /><br />The only reality here is that unless some breakthrough is made, we're stuck down here on Earth. The current technologies will never be good for more than occasional footprints, flags and the occasional geologist's holiday on nearby bodies, and TBH I'm hugely skeptical that we'll even get to Mars with chemical rockets or their obvious descendents. It simply won't ever be worth the cost and effort- and even if we get there there's virtually nothing we can do. It'd be like trying to colonise the New World by coracle.

 

[dragon04]

<font color="yellow">Maybe, but then so is travelling to Alpha Centauri on a flying bomb.</font><br /><br />That's what the STS117 astronauts left Earth on last evening. Not a nuclear bomb, but a bomb still.<br /><br />Fluff to me doesn't include a system that could be built and flown right here and right now.<br /><br />Aside from some semantics, I agree with you though about needing a breakthrough in propulsive technology.<br /><br /><font color="yellow">I'm hugely skeptical that we'll even get to Mars with chemical rockets or their obvious descendents. It simply won't ever be worth the cost and effort- and even if we get there there's virtually nothing we can do. It'd be like trying to colonise the New World by coracle.</font><br /><br />We'll go to Mars within 50 years. Probably the day after I die with my luck.<br /><br /><br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <em>"2012.. Year of the Dragon!! Get on the Dragon Wagon!".</em> </div>

 

[vandivx]

"<br />Certainly the best possible future lies in the study of high energy physics and newer, bigger, more powerful supercolliders to explore the science with. "<br />--<br /><br />I see biggest reserves and potential for breakthrough advances in theoretical physics and in areas of physics that are concerned with very small and very big (quantum mechanics and cosmology)<br /><br />btw I get a lot of satisfaction seeing how problematic things become when you start talking of actually going someplace outside solar system and we are only considering nearest star, how many times people on this board talked off hand of traveling between galaxies and better LOL too many lovers of sci-fi on these boards if you ask me<br /><br />vanDivX <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[dragon04]

Help me out here. I DID read your links.<br /><br />Nowhere did I see anything that addressed what would be required to produce and contain antimatter on the scale needed to fuel such a ship.<br /><br />Show me a design for antimatter production on an industrial scale. If you can't, even the best and most efficient antimatter spaceship isn't a practical possibility.<br /><br />Do you have facts and figures on how much antimatter CERN could produce in a year's time if it did nothing <b>but</b> produce antihydrogen?<br /><br />I find this conspicuously absent from anything I read.<br /><br />Explain to me precisely how much antimatter can be produced and precisely how long it would take to adequately fuel such a craft for the shortest of interstellar voyages, and then we can go to the next level of discussion that deals with the associated problems of relativistic velocities in terms of spaceflight.<br /><br />In the absence of such hard data, the Valkyrie may as well be a Star Trek tricorder.<br /><br />All I saw were generalizations and vague descriptions. Something like an Orion is backed up with hard data and hard engineering with complete and detailed explanations.<br /><br />Sell me on your flying bungee cord.<br /><br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <em>"2012.. Year of the Dragon!! Get on the Dragon Wagon!".</em> </div>

 

[vandivx]

"Really the problem is there are surprisingly few practical and useful ideas out there.<br />A lot of fluff, little hard science and engineering, IMHO."<br /><br />that also, still I believe that every time has its geniuses but they may lay dormant because of the overall atmoshpere in science field, I think there is way too much self confidence around physics these days although it is wholy unwarranteed IMO and that greatly discourages anybody who might have alternative views<br /><br />like take that idea of aether, coming out with that today is like coming up with some freedom ideas in Nazi Germany in its hayday when everybody was spoiling against anything to do with reason and freedom and although there are no physicall repercussions if you try to push the idea of that aether for example (but if you are professional you may not get that next better position you applied for), it earns you cold shoulder if not ridicule and if you submit paper that mentions aether it will likely get dismissed out of hand, everybody is always gushing how they are open to anything but that anything is pretty rigidly defined and turns up not to be open at all (I am not talking about amateurs on boards like these who may be open to anything but professionals who make living from science<br /><br />I see it quite likely that even if we scrape together some 'fifty year mission' tomorrow that it won't be how we will one day explore those star systems out there, I don't think that physical transfer is the future of space exploration, there are limits which may prove forbiding once and for all for such cosmic tourism<br /><br />vanDivX <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[MeteorWayne]

I don't believe your rambling reply sheds any light on the issues I addressed.<br /><br />Please show me I'm wrong. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font color="#000080"><em><font color="#000000">But the Krell forgot one thing John. Monsters. Monsters from the Id.</font></em> </font></p><p><font color="#000080">I really, really, really, really miss the "first unread post" function</font><font color="#000080"> </font></p> </div>

 

[dragon04]

<font color="yellow">btw I get a lot of satisfaction seeing how problematic things become when you start talking of actually going someplace outside solar system and we are only considering nearest star, how many times people on this board talked off hand of traveling between galaxies and better LOL too many lovers of sci-fi on these boards if you ask me</font><br /><br />I recognize this, and I'm no more than an interested layperson with merely a general knowledge.<br /><br />I'm not against speculation or "out of the box" thinking by any means. I think it is absolutely <b>necessary</b> to consider all possibilities.<br /><br />Where I begin to separate from that is discriminating between conjecture and "nuts and bolts" level practical application of those ideas.<br /><br />I'll propose an idea. Now, let's test it. Vigorously. Only then can we make the critical decision whether it's worth pursuing given current technological abilities.<br /><br />I can make any theory or hypothesis I wish. That doesn't make them valid. I don't mind being wrong. In fact, being wrong is an educational opportunity. I'm afraid that too many people adopt an egocentric view (even or perhaps especially amongst "experts") that prohibits them from seeing the larger picture.<br /><br />Over time, I've become somewhat less afraid to express my views. But that's not as easy as it sounds when interacting as a layperson with people who are trained and have expertise. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <em>"2012.. Year of the Dragon!! Get on the Dragon Wagon!".</em> </div>

 

[vandivx]

"<br />I don't believe your rambling reply sheds any light on the issues I addressed.<br /><br />Please show me I'm wrong."<br /><br />you illustrate exactly my point by such come-on<br /><br />vanDivX <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[jaxtraw]

Dragon04, it's not "my" flying bungee cord. It's just an interesting idea I found on the internets that addresses a whole bunch of interstellar travel problems, such as mass ratios and the problem with shielding at relativistic speeds and so on. I thought people might find it interesting.<br /><br />If you'd read the article, you'd see the only "blue sky" bit is, indeed, the antimatter production, for which they propose a load of solar-powered particle accelerators on the Moon. That's in the article. This clearly cannot be done right now, and I'm not going to sit here defending whether it ever can be. However, I will say that the technology is entirely within the laws of physics, so it's not "Star Trek". They propose building them with Von Neumann machines. That isn't necessarily possible, it is Star Trek, and I'd like a better proposal than that, personally*. <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /><br /><br />And I'll just reiterate my point that you seem to have missed, which is that CERN wasn't built as an antimatter factory, it's a scientific research installation, and a very good one too.<br /><br />To make interstellar travel a reality, you need to do it on human timescales, and that requires potty amounts of energy however you go about it, whether it's antimatter or H-bombs. I just remind you again that we're sitting here talking about going 4 light years, in a world that has nothing but chemical rockets and needs to use slingshots to visit planets next door. And we're not even going to do that, in terms of human cargo, until somebody can actually think of a practical reason for going there- and nobody ever seems to do that. And that's Mars, not Alpha Centauri.<br /><br />So really, I thought this was just an interesting design to consider, and I really don't feel that I'm in a hotseat defending it, because it's not my idea or anything. Just something worth considering which might be, at some future date, in the same ballpark of sensibleness as riding to the stars on a t

 

[MeteorWayne]

I'm serious. I did not understand your post. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font color="#000080"><em><font color="#000000">But the Krell forgot one thing John. Monsters. Monsters from the Id.</font></em> </font></p><p><font color="#000080">I really, really, really, really miss the "first unread post" function</font><font color="#000080"> </font></p> </div>

 

[dragon04]

You're getting right at the heart of the issue. What we "think" or what we hypothesize is all well and good, but our frame of reference until the Next Great Discovery is simply what we know. What's tried and tested.<br /><br />I'm not dismissive of any "exotic" notion or theory. But show me the money shot. Show me how it's workable in specific (and practical) terms.<br /><br />I'm no expert. I'm not a Physicist, or credentialed Engineer (outside of my EE degree) or Astronomer. But I have a grip on the principle that exotic ideas require observable and provable solutions and methods to a high degree of confidence.<br /><br />As a layperson with what I consider to be a reasonable amount of logic and common sense, I'm not willing to give "the experts" a free pass. They have to be able to convince stupid little me that they're correct in terms that I can understand.<br /><br />If they can't do THAT, their game is weak, IMO. That may sound a bit naieve or arrogant, but arrogant is as arrogant does, Sir, to paraphrase Forrest Gump. <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <em>"2012.. Year of the Dragon!! Get on the Dragon Wagon!".</em> </div>

 

[vandivx]

"Over time, I've become somewhat less afraid to express my views. But that's not as easy as it sounds when interacting as a layperson with people who are trained and have expertise."<br /><br />as long as you know at least your phys101 and 102 you should be ok <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /><br />I am listening to Feynman lectures on 'tapes' and as he said there, all of today's physics can still be presented within a course such as he was giving<br /><br />as to going somewhere far, I'd rather focus on our solar system - say to explore the outer planets before we consider sending something to stars <br /><br />vanDivX <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[vandivx]

"I'm serious. I did not understand your post."<br /><br />perhaps you mean like its too hyperbolic (ie doesn't address directly the thread discussion), that happens to me quite often that people don't get what I say and I suppose its my fault rather than theirs <br /><br />if you didn't get that idea of exploring the stars different way than plain traveling there (manned or robotic probe), I had in mind an analogous case when people always wanted time travel to past (or even future) and these days we can indeed travel to past already (via movie records say) but that's not like what people imagined and they still stick fast to talking about real time travel to past even if that plainly violates the basic physics, same with stars, one day we will explore them but it may not be in the form as people like to imagine now (traveling there physically), future almost always pans out diffently than people think it would be<br /><br />that's why I would like to see a slightly different spin on the star exploration, to consider it from diffent angle, after all it doesn't matter how we get the data on foreign star system as long as we get it somehow and it doesn't have to involve long traveling times or (near) relativistic speeds<br /><br />vanDivX <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>