Sending probe to nearest star.

[h2ouniverse]

Vandix,<br />I do agree that without new propulsion, the exploration beyond Solar sytem (in-situ, not by remote-observations) is completely unpractical. This being said, we are so primitive. We do not understand such basic notions as space, time, and subsequently speed. (see EPR paradox and Aspect's experience). And the actual number of dimensions of our universe. And whether the universe is really topological... I do believe we will overcome that one day. And this day, what we call "huge distances" will not be an issue.<br /><br />And what if we cannot overcome that, and if we are alone, free to lay our eggs everywhere? (two big ifs...)Well, in that case we will slowly colonize our system (there are thousands of bodies of interest). Then pass from our Oort cloud to the one of our neighbours. Then colonize nearby stars within few million years. And then a large part of galaxy in about 1 billion years (4 galactic years). The nearby star systems will be our insemination vessels as they drift away from Sun by thousands of light years over hundreds of millions years. Think of it like a cloud of milk in a whirlpooling cup of tea. Then Milky Way and M31 will interact, ejecting some of their homo-contaminated stars as additional vessels towards other galaxies.<br />Not that bad anyway for a worst case. <br /><br />IMO however, we will reach complexity singularity in far closer future, at a state where this kind of expansion will no longer berelevant, because dependance on matter for our development will itself no longer be relevant. Let's see.<br /><br />The only certainty is that there will not be stagnation. There is no such thing in Nature!

 

[dragon04]

I'm not at all saying that it isn't interesting. It is. I'm just not seeing the facts and figures that take it from an interesting idea to a practical one.<br /><br />In fact, the ideas I find most interesting make me very likely to require vigorous and detailed explanation.<br /><br /><font color="yellow">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.</font><br /><br />Yes it is. But that doesn't answer my simple question. How much antimatter could it produce in a year's time if it were dedicated to that purpose and that purpose only?<br /><br />That's a pertinent question because that's the kind of supercollider that would be the backbone of antimatter production given our current technological capabilities.<br /><br /><font color="yellow">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.</font><br /><br />I really don't expect you personally to "defend" it. The premise of my response to you was to take it past "interesting" and recognize the need for its proponents to defend it in very specific terms.<br /><br />As an example, I think Warp Drive would be pretty darned cool. But unless someone can lay out how it would be practical and attainable with our current technology, it's no more than a speculative curiosity, and if I promoted it here on SDC, my first statement would be that while I like the idea, I want proof that it's workable rather than just pointing out that it's interesting.<br /><br />If you choose to expose the readers to something like this, you have to expect that people will have questions in regards to the practicality of it.<br /><br />It's not an attack on you, but rather a challenge to the premise on which the technology is based.<br /><br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <em>"2012.. Year of the Dragon!! Get on the Dragon Wagon!".</em> </div>

 

[dragon04]

<font color="yellow">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</font><br /><br />I think that's a prudent point of view and I agree with it completely.<br /><br />We don't need extravagant leaps of technology to do these things. So in my opinion, until such a time that things are different, this is what we should focus on. <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <em>"2012.. Year of the Dragon!! Get on the Dragon Wagon!".</em> </div>

 

[jaxtraw]

Fair enough, except I don't think the Warp Drive analogy is fair. Warp Drive is magic science fiction-- it's not theoretically feasible (as of this moment). Antimatter production is theoretically feasible- but a practical challenge. It's the difference between proposing a bridge across the Atlantic, and proposing that it float on anti-gravity <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" />

 

[robnissen]

Personally, if we are really going to try to go to AC, I think we should do a lot of research with solar sails. Although one current huge problem is that with current tecnology it is hard to get much acceleration after somewhere between jupiter and saturn. But I agree with the poster who said that right now there is not much scientific reason to attempt an ac mission. I also agree with the earlier poster who suggested that every 25 years, we implement a 50 year mission. That way technology won't have passed us by too much in that time span. Indeed, I'm sorry to say that despite the many scientific advances of the last 40 years, in the area of propelsion, we aren't much further along than we were with the Saturn V circa 1967.

 

[vandivx]

I like the entanglement experiments and the whole notion of the instantaneous bridging of remote points, we don't have good understanding of QM and that's good because there is hope in that once we figure it out... also gravitational waves if they are found might play some role in star exploration, also we don't know what's causing the phenomena of dark matter and energy<br /><br />all in all it seems to me we don't have a good handle on physics at all and as I said there is hope in that because who knows what means of exploring we might have once all that is understood<br /><br />traveling with some 50 yr window is ok but tens or even hundred thousand years are extremely iffy, for example there were those extinctions in the past on Earth and who knows when next one will hit and what will happen with us people when it does, its up for anybody's guess if intelligence would prove sufficient to carry us over<br /><br />the whole point is that it is not written anywhere that we will be here forever or even those billion years you talk about, there is no God to save us if anything happens and cosmos will do just as well without us as with us, it will grow new life somewhere in due time depending as the dice falls<br /><br />vanDivX <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[h2ouniverse]

Vandix,<br />I think we agree. I was mentioning the billion-year slow expansion scenario just to please the pessismists (and to demonstrate that even in that case, there is still a prospect). Generally pessimists feel comforted and reassured with very slooooow evolution of things. They say they will never be able to achieve more than few 100s AUs hops? OK, then even if we just hop from one body to another, we will propagate anyway. There are many bodies between two nearby stars.<br /><br />Personally I think this will go so much faster.

 

[alokmohan]

By using worm hole you reach near star very easy.It is veryease to get one.Get exotic matter and you have it .You may know that Kip Thorne has both.

 

[nexium]

Even a 50 year trip is ify with present technology. Murphy's law provides too many disasters in 50 years or more. We are presently a long way from self sufficiency for a habitat farther from the Sun than Neptune. A human habitat beyond Neptune is a worthy goal for about the Year 2090. Neil

 

[MeteorWayne]

We haven't even been in space 50 years yet (well maybe with the X-15. Not sure off the top of my head when the 100km "space" barrier was passed. <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>

 

[masterregal]

The way I see it is it takes over 10,000 years to get to the nearest star. In 10,000 years, we will have the technology to likely get there in a couple of years, or maybe even instantaneously. So chances are, in 10,000 years, you could get their before the first probe even arrives.

 

[centsworth_II]

<font color="yellow">"The way I see it is it takes over 10,000 years to get to the nearest star."</font><br /><br />What about all the new science that will be done by the probe in the first fifty<br />year's of its life? Learning more about the near solar system environment.<br />The probe should be designed to study our solar system first. And then, if<br />future generations decide continuing the mission worthwhile, it can explore<br />some extra-solar system. But the essential is to design the mission so that <br />the generation that sends it off gets its money's worth while allowing for the <br />possibility of some future generation profiting from its continued operation. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[kelvinzero]

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p><br />Indeed, I'm sorry to say that despite the many scientific advances of the last 40 years, in the area of propelsion, we aren't much further along than we were with the Saturn V circa 1967. <br /><p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br /><br />Launch technology, true. But all those electric propulsion advances are quite exciting for long term unmanned missions, such as poking around the outer solar system.<br /><br />I also like the 25year/50year approach.

 

[ariesr]

If Valkyrie project were being seriously considered, it would have to start at a small scale anyway. <br /><br />At full mass of 200 tons, it would mean building it in space, and how long has it taken to build ISS?