Live data from Hacker News

Interstellar Flight: Perspectives and Patience

centauri-dreams.org

101–110 of 196 posts

Re: Interstellar Flight: Perspectives and Patience

#101
post #16

The comment by Benjamin Stockton on the article page is spot-on: >I just wonder if humanity’s adventurous nature is leading us away from a proper focus on the sustainability of our civilization, our specie, and our fragile planetary environment? But we still need spaceflight at least for planetary defense against asteroids, mining asteroids(so we don't have to mine Earth), etc.

It is incredibly toxic belief, easily weaponized against space exploration.

There will be never enough resources for "sustainability of our civilization, our specie, and our fragile planetary environment".

Re: Interstellar Flight: Perspectives and Patience

#102

>To get around thousand-year generation ships, we are examining some beamed energy solutions that could drive a small sail to Proxima in 20 years. The odds of a spacecraft hitting a single particle of dust while in space are 100%. A spacecraft hitting a single particle of dust at 0.2c will impart tens of millions of joules into the body of the spacecraft, the equivalent of getting hit with hundreds of pulses from the…

[dead]

Re: Interstellar Flight: Perspectives and Patience

#103

I worked this table out with ChatGPT (with all the caveats that implies): https://gridwhale.com/program.hexm?id=GCJ5TL7Z&file=GCJ5TL7Z... Basically, nothing short of antimatter rockets will get you a self-contained interstellar ship. Ion propulsion, even with nuclear reactors, can't get you enough speed. Fission-fragment reactors can get you up to 1% lightspeed, but that's still 400 years to Alpha Centauri--I'm not s…

[dead]

Re: Interstellar Flight: Perspectives and Patience

#104

>To get around thousand-year generation ships, we are examining some beamed energy solutions that could drive a small sail to Proxima in 20 years. The odds of a spacecraft hitting a single particle of dust while in space are 100%. A spacecraft hitting a single particle of dust at 0.2c will impart tens of millions of joules into the body of the spacecraft, the equivalent of getting hit with hundreds of pulses from the…

Perhaps, some fraction of the laser energy beamed to move the sail is redirected directly in front of the spacecraft to vaporize any dust particles in its path. Fragments of a circular sail could be angled in the right way so as to take some fraction of the light's momentum in its desired direction with the rest reflected at an angle to clear the opposite side of the sail. For a circular sail you'd then get a circula…

You're avoiding the energy that would be imparted by hitting the dust spec by... adding energy to the dust spec? Perhaps splitting it so it damages a larger area? It seems better to let it plow as small a hole as possible in the sail.

Re: Interstellar Flight: Perspectives and Patience

#105

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you start in our solar system this doesn't help. You could do a gravity assist from a planet to help with an interstellar trip (like the Voyagers) but not a gravity assist from the sun, starting from one of 'our' planets.

> could do a gravity assist from a planet to help with an interstellar trip (like the Voyagers) but not a gravity assist from the sun, starting from one of 'our' planets Of course you can. Galileo, Cassini-Huygens and Giotto are Earth-launched spacecraft that used Earth for a gravity assist. If you need to accelerate with reference to the galaxy, you can use the Sun’s motion through it to slingshot.

Earth isn't going in a straight line. If it were, it would be useless as a gravity assist.

Re: Interstellar Flight: Perspectives and Patience

#106

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you start in our solar system this doesn't help. You could do a gravity assist from a planet to help with an interstellar trip (like the Voyagers) but not a gravity assist from the sun, starting from one of 'our' planets.

> could do a gravity assist from a planet to help with an interstellar trip (like the Voyagers) but not a gravity assist from the sun, starting from one of 'our' planets Of course you can. Galileo, Cassini-Huygens and Giotto are Earth-launched spacecraft that used Earth for a gravity assist. If you need to accelerate with reference to the galaxy, you can use the Sun’s motion through it to slingshot.

No, you can't. Gravity assists require the assisting body (Jupiter) to be moving, relative to the body that needs the assist (Voyager), in the direction the assisted body wants to go.

They have an unfortunate name because it's not just the assisting body's gravity that provides the assist. It's the combination of gravity and velocity.

As Voyager nears Jupiter, Jupiter's gravity grabs it. Then, Jupiter's velocity relative to Voyager drags Voyager - that is, transfers energy to it. Without that relative motion, all Voyager's gravity does is add energy on the way in and then remove exactly the same energy on the way out.

Re: Interstellar Flight: Perspectives and Patience

#107
post #96

Earlier quoted context omitted.

With a relatively small initial investment, you can build reentry vehicles out of the asteroid, depending on the specific composition.

Or, just fashion the metal into ingots that are coated with an ablator (carbon, say) and allow them to enter as artificial meteorites. Suitably sized they will hit the ground at reasonable speed and can be dug up.

Even better than carbon use an ablative made out of olivine that can sequester CO2 as it ablates.

That way by offloading mining and refining into space to prevent the damage that these activities incur on earth you're also undoing damage to Earth from past human activities.

Re: Interstellar Flight: Perspectives and Patience

#108
post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And the delta-V back from a NEO is as little as 1% of that to get to LEO from the Earth's surface. Also, the materials we're talking about from asteroid mining, like platinum group elements, probably are shipped by air, just for security. This whole argument is reminding me of the facile and bogus argument that launch to earth orbit from planet's surface is expensive because of the energy needed.

If it's a bogus argument then mount a counterargument. The question is simple: what is worth mining in space? So far we have... "maybe platinum." Maybe! Aside from the conspicuous absence of math, "maybe platinum" isn't remotely important enough a factor in earthbound mining to justify asteroid mining on the basis of preserving earth, obviously.

What's worth mining in space? Everything that we can mine in space. That seems glib but I'll elaborate.

By moving mining off planet to the moon and asteroids we eliminate the carbon emissions and environmental damage that occurs from these processes.

So how do we do it? We don't need to start sending fleets and fleets of crafts into space which is energetically expensive and time consuming, what we need to do is develop self-replicating mining equipment that we can send to turn the things we want to mine into more things that can mine for us. We won't achieve full self-replication immediately but we can definitely send machines that can do partial self-replication at first and work on improving the ratio of material sent to material returned.

What do we send back? titanium, platinum, aluminum, nickel, iron, whatever we find there. If platinum was as cheap and plentiful as aluminum was now we would have all sorts of catalytic uses for it that would significantly clean up our Earth based industrial practices.

How do we send it back? If we're sending it back from the moon that's easy -- a space elevator or rail gun. If we're sending it back from asteroids inefficient but cheap iron ion thrusters. Use iron from the asteroids as fuel.

Bonus points: Send it back covered in ablative material like mined olivine that can react with CO2 in the atmosphere to sequester it, that way the whole process isn't just moving environmentally damaging industrial practices to other solar bodies but we're undoing some of the damage from past human activities.

Re: Interstellar Flight: Perspectives and Patience

#109
With Alpha Centauri being only 4 light years away, interstellar travel seems almost feasible. But then you consider all the inconvenient details, and realize such a journey would have to take hundreds, maybe thousands or even more years on top of some incredible advances in rocket tech.

If you go to something like Trappist (40 ly) at 0.01c (very optimistic), it's not just that everyone you know will be dead when you arrive. Your entire nation will have disappeared to the sands of time. The landfall announcement you send back will be incomprehensible because of language shifts, and you won't live to see the reply. Meanwhile, such a trip would be an enormous investment, requiring multiple nations to bankrupt themselves, with no hope of even surviving to see the outcome.

With that, it's very hard to imagine interstellar travel being feasible with our current understanding. There would have to be something like FTL travel or wormhole. The only "realistic" development, (much) better engines that can do 0.1c, would not actually change much.

Re: Interstellar Flight: Perspectives and Patience

#110

I worked this table out with ChatGPT (with all the caveats that implies): https://gridwhale.com/program.hexm?id=GCJ5TL7Z&file=GCJ5TL7Z... Basically, nothing short of antimatter rockets will get you a self-contained interstellar ship. Ion propulsion, even with nuclear reactors, can't get you enough speed. Fission-fragment reactors can get you up to 1% lightspeed, but that's still 400 years to Alpha Centauri--I'm not s…

If we assume 100 colonists on the ship, with 10 tons of mass per person, accelerating to 0.2c over 2 ly and then back down, the energy required is quite substantial. Multiple centuries of the total output of the whole planet.
Post reply on HN