Starship Asterisk*

Fred the Cat wrote:Space X will launch MIT's next transit observer next year I heard this weekend. On a shoestring budget in the millions rather than billions of Kepler. Quite a design feat.

TESS. ItTy bitty tEleScopes in Space Maybe SETI could use your help with your own one? Too bad it can't listen at 1420.

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

neufer wrote:

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.

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.

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 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?

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!"

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.

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.

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.

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.

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).

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Chris Peterson wrote: ... 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.

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.