Debunking Interstellar Travel: Separating Fact from Fiction

[bugatti79]

Hi Folks,

What is your opinion on this article? It suggest that interstellar travel is a fantasy.

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/interstellar-travel-as-delusional-fantasy-excerpt/#

Yet, I read articles about institutions like NASA investing in various conceptual propulsion systems.

Are they wasting their time?

Regards
B

 

[Borg]

With today's technology - yes, it's a fantasy. The article spells it out pretty clearly.

 

[phinds]

I haven't looked at the article but you'll find many threads on this forum pointing out all the issues that make it a fantasy.

 

[DrStupid]

What is your opinion on this article?

The argumentation is limited to humans traveling with existing or at least prospected technology at relativistic speeds in order to colonize an exoplanet (possibly occupied by hostile aliens!) and to get a return of investment. Finally the conclusion derived from these shortsighted assumptions - that such a project would be impossible and foolish - is presented as universally valid. I simply don't like it.

 

[bugatti79]

but assuming we have the technology it would still be impossible to travel through all that dust without damage? To me, that is the ultimate limitation IMHO!

 

[phinds]

but assuming we have the technology it would still be impossible to travel through all that dust without damage? To me, that is the ultimate limitation IMHO!

That seems to be a self-contradictory statement. "Having the technology" INCLUDES having a way to get through the dust.

 

[bugatti79]

I should choose my words carefully. I meant "propulsion technology" that major firms are investing in etc at the moment.

 

[phinds]

I should choose my words carefully. I meant "propulsion technology" that major firms are investing in etc at the moment.

OK, but propulsion technology is just one of many things that would be needed.

 

[Borg]

I should choose my words carefully. I meant "propulsion technology" that major firms are investing in etc at the moment.

Even this is an overstatement. The only currently possible propulsion technology improvements are things that can help to get to the other planets quicker. Nobody is working on an interstellar drive nor is it technically feasible. We're stuck in this solar system unless we discover something fundementally different about physics.

 

[Drakkith]

We're stuck in this solar system unless we discover something fundementally different about physics.

Or we have a really, really good reason to leave.

 

[Rubidium_71]

Necessity is the mother of invention. The tone of the article suggests we should've stayed in Africa, a voyage to another continent would be extremely dangerous and there would be no guarantee of a profitable return. I agree that there are monumental challenges that we may never overcome. It also seems more likely that our machines (rather than humans themselves) will be the first visitors to other star systems. Especially given the current direction of exploration in our own Solar System - we've sent our machines to the outer reaches, rather than going ourselves.
I agree with Drakkith, if people had a good enough reason to flee the Earth they just might come up with something. While current science and technology are inadequate, who knows what future innovation will bring?

 

[Borg]

Necessity is the mother of invention. The tone of the article suggests we should've stayed in Africa, a voyage to another continent would be extremely dangerous and there would be no guarantee of a profitable return. I agree that there are monumental challenges that we may never overcome. It also seems more likely that our machines (rather than humans themselves) will be the first visitors to other star systems. Especially given the current direction of exploration in our own Solar System - we've sent our machines to the outer reaches, rather than going ourselves.
I agree with Drakkith, if people had a good enough reason to flee the Earth they just might come up with something. While current science and technology are inadequate, who knows what future innovation will bring?

It sounds like you're saying both that we should do it and it can't be done.

 

[Rubidium_71]

I'm admitting it can't currently be done. I'm not saying it's outside the realm of all possibility. The message of the article seems to say "give up on any extra solar endeavor." Seems a little defeatist to me.

 

[DrStupid]

Or we have a really, really good reason to leave.

It would need a really, really good reason not to leave. We will start colonizing the solar system as soon as we learn to permanently live in space. After planets, moons and asteroids our descendants will colonize the Kuiper belt and finally the Oort cloud. At the outer edge of the Oort cloud they are almost halfway to the next star. Drifting around the Sun (which is just a bright star out there) or to another star makes no difference for such a colony. They have no reason not to take the last step into another system with new resources. Always preventing all deep space colonies from leaving the Solar system would be hard work - even for god-like entities. And there is no reason to do so. Trying to reach the other stars first makes much more sense.

 

[Borg]

It's like a race of intelligent ants building a bridge across the atlantic.

 

[Hornbein]

Hi Folks,

What is your opinion on this article? It suggest that interstellar travel is a fantasy.

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/interstellar-travel-as-delusional-fantasy-excerpt/#

Yet, I read articles about institutions like NASA investing in various conceptual propulsion systems.

Are they wasting their time?

Regards
B

It seems like a fantasy today. But who knows the technology of the year 44521?

 

[rootone]

It seems like a fantasy today. But who knows the technology of the year 44521?

Fair comment, but well established physics will still be the same.
At present it's incomprehensible what kind of engine could accelerate a fairly massive ship to a substantial fraction of light speed,
but it's not impossible in principle.
I think the really insurmountable problem will be interstellar dust particles which can't be seen before the ship hits it,
and when it does hit, it would release energy in the order of a fair sized nuke, (directly on the surface of a fragile habitat).

 

[Hornbein]

Fair comment, but well established physics will still be the same.

probably. But they may have an entirely different approach to the problem. Besides, I'm sure there are all sorts of consequences of known physics of which we are unaware. If 20,000 years isn't enough, how about 20,000,000 years?

 

[MacRudi]

Hi Folks,

What is your opinion on this article? It suggest that interstellar travel is a fantasy.

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/interstellar-travel-as-delusional-fantasy-excerpt/#

Yet, I read articles about institutions like NASA investing in various conceptual propulsion systems.

Are they wasting their time?

Regards
B

It is a waste of time to read this article
Many people are working on problems of interstellar flights since the 1970s
http://www.icarusinterstellar.org/project-daedalus-background/

If you look only on propulsion technology, then we have many new theoretical and even now practical ideas since the 1970s.
We can think of now for an electroplasma drive which can be 300 km/s fast
We can think of later for a fusion drive which can be about 10 % of light speed (look at Andreas Hein and his Ghostship he designed and was awarded for in 2013). The design includes not only the fusion technology. It is also the complete spaceship with electromagentic shields and Berilium surface against dust and space radiation. Old conceptions were with 60 cm aluminium walls.
This is only the technology with man more things to think about, but many people are also working on sociology and psychological problems for a generationship.
But I think (it's my opinion and not of the most interstellar enthusiasts) that it makes sense only if we have a true WARP drive. Many things would be easier. Not only because we could fly much faster than light. But then we have only one really big problem and this will be energy production for a WARP drive. We need 500kg Antimatter for a 10-meter WARP bubble with an effective velocity of 10c, if we calculate for the ordinary alcubierre drive in oscilation. So we need an matter/antimatter reactor like in Star Trek. But where to get 500 kg antimatter? How much energy we would need to produce 500 kg antimatter in LHC? What would it cost?
But anyway
I still believe that we can solve all problems in time. And I think this will be not too far in time. We have many conceptions and ideas. And if we have all the theoretical ideas then we can take over in practice 50 years later. The biggest problem is only the money. And the capitalististic system is not efficient enough to get money for such a project before in 200 years (serious calculations based on calculations of ISS of Andreas Hein University munich)

 

[newjerseyrunner]

I saw this article earlier: http://www.zmescience.com/space/lasers-mars-travel-04232/ I have doubts about some of the time estimates, but I think this will probably be our first real propulsion system out of the solar system. A space based laser in solar orbit could theoretically push a small craft to a fraction of the speed of light and send it on a flyby mission to nearby stars.

 

[|Glitch|]

Even this is an overstatement. The only currently possible propulsion technology improvements are things that can help to get to the other planets quicker. Nobody is working on an interstellar drive nor is it technically feasible. We're stuck in this solar system unless we discover something fundementally different about physics.

Actually, there is a propulsion technology that can do both. A propulsion system with the ability to generate 1 g continuous thrust would get us to planets quicker (Mars, for example, in under 3 days) and propel us to the stars. The biggest problem for interstellar travel would be the fuel. We couldn't bring along enough fuel to make it to even the closest star, even if the engines were 100% efficient and we used anti-matter. Which means that the fuel would have to be collected/manufactured along the way.

 

[Sei]

Actually, there is a propulsion technology that can do both. A propulsion system with the ability to generate 1 g continuous thrust would get us to planets quicker (Mars, for example, in under 3 days) and propel us to the stars. The biggest problem for interstellar travel would be the fuel. We couldn't bring along enough fuel to make it to even the closest star, even if the engines were 100% efficient and we used anti-matter. Which means that the fuel would have to be collected/manufactured along the way.

Bussard Ramjet.

 

[newjerseyrunner]

Bussard Ramjet.

Unlikely, the density of the interstellar medium is now known to be considerably less than it was assumed to be when Bussard made his proposal. It may work for other species in denser parts of the galaxy, but not here.

 

[Sei]

Unlikely, the density of the interstellar medium is now known to be considerably less than it was assumed to be when Bussard made his proposal. It may work for other species in denser parts of the galaxy, but not here.

Maybe a fuel-out ramjet "stops" to scoop more hydrogen and retry it? Don't forget the ramjet is moving, not stopping. I think there's a way to do.

 

[rootone]

The problem though is that the density in much of the galaxy is so low that the 'scoop' would need to be enormous to collect a useful amount of material, about the size of Earth.
Not only does that present a very major problem in constructing it, but also because of the huge volume there is more chance of a few substantial bits of rock etc being encountered, despite the overall low density, and that is not good when moving at a very high velocity.

 

[|Glitch|]

The problem though is that the density in much of the galaxy is so low that the 'scoop' would need to be enormous to collect a useful amount of material, about the size of Earth.
Not only does that present a very major problem in constructing it, but also because of the huge volume there is more chance of a few substantial bits of rock etc being encountered, despite the overall low density, and that is not good when moving at a very high velocity.

Consider also that by the time a spacecraft leaves the solar system it will already be moving at relativistic speeds. The extremely rarefied interstellar hydrogen would become more abundant the closer one approaches the speed of light.

 

[enorbet]

Back in the late 50s or early 60s G. Harry Stine, a scientist who worked at White Sands and whom was also a SciFi writer under a "nom de plume", published an article that I saw in one of the "Astonishing Science Fiction" sorts of periodicals. He made graphs with Time as the X coordinate and speed achieved by humans on the Y-axis. He did this for energy at the disposal of a single human and several other Y variations and all of them became asymptotic shortly after the year 2000. Obviously the basic premise of the exercise was flawed, that it was indeed possible for such a rate of increase to continue.

Certainly ther major component as mentioned earlier in this thread is money but that is tightly coupled to resources as well as the will of where to employ it. The very fact that it took a major fight in the US Senate to countermand the abandonment of a project as important as "the next Hubble", the James Webb Space Telescope, should give us all a clue to how willing the public seems to be to spend bucks on anything not Earthbound and of rather immediately recognizable value, assuming we can call our bloated Defense Budget as "immediately valuable".

The fact remains that even the death of our Sun in 5 billion years does not necessarily require leaving our Solar System and though it hurts me deeply, I must conclude that interstellar travel is an exceedingly long way off, given we even survive that long as a (dominant) species. Could we do it? Maybe. Will we? Sheerest optimistic speculation.

 

[Chronos]

Unless we figure out a workaround to the speed of light, space is simply too vast for interstallar travel. The demands are so enormous even antimatter would be a laughable excuse for an energy source.

 

[enorbet]

It really should be obvious that as unimaginably difficult as even near light speed would be to attain, it is woefully matched against the vast distances in interstellar travel. Anyone who doubts this has likely not seen this sobering graphic http://www.planetary.org/blogs/emily-lakdawall/2012/3390.html

It should also, in light of that pitiful achievment at full C, be obvious that the only way even remotely possible for practical interstellar "travel" is to somehow, assuming it is even possible, to fold spacetime and effectively negate the distance.

 

[newjerseyrunner]

Unless we figure out a workaround to the speed of light, space is simply too vast for interstallar travel. The demands are so enormous even antimatter would be a laughable excuse for an energy source.

I'm sorry, but I find this too anthropocentric. It's easy for me to imagine a species that has members that enjoys long bouts of solitude and lives for tens of thousands of years with the aid of medical technology. It's only laughable to you because you only live long enough for one trip, scale your lifespan up so that the fifty years it takes to get to Alpha Centauri is like taking a two week vacation.