Please offer an alternate scheme that you think will be faster that might be possible in the next few decades..
Mass beam propulsion.Unlike laser tech, it's scalable to crewed missions as well (without Singularity-level resources).
Quote from: MAC74 on 08/25/2016 10:44 pmQuote from: scienceguy on 08/25/2016 04:49 pmWouldn't the James Webb Space Telescope be able to get a picture of this planet? The star is just a red dwarf.Not even close. Proxima b has a separation from it's star of about 20 milli-arcseconds. The band limited Lyot coronagraphs in JWST's instruments have inner working angles varying from 400 mas to 800 mas. So the coronagraphs would not be able to spatially resolve the planet or even come close to it.In addition to that, there is the contrast problem. A terrestrial planet in the habitable zone of a mid M dwarf has a contrast of about 1 X 10^-8 dimmer than its host star. The coronagraphs on JWST are designed for about 1 X 10^-5 contract, since they are simple coronagrpahs without any wavefront control or diffraction suppression.WFIRST would get closer but the inner working angle of the coronagraph would still be too large for this planet.The best bet to study it in detail in the next few years would be if the planet transits its host star, which would allow JWST to use Transmission or Emission Spectroscopy on it.Well what's been posted on Twitter tonight by the official JWST account would seem to disagree with you on completely precluding anything at this point in time.https://mobile.twitter.com/NASAWebb/status/768923069805125632
Quote from: scienceguy on 08/25/2016 04:49 pmWouldn't the James Webb Space Telescope be able to get a picture of this planet? The star is just a red dwarf.Not even close. Proxima b has a separation from it's star of about 20 milli-arcseconds. The band limited Lyot coronagraphs in JWST's instruments have inner working angles varying from 400 mas to 800 mas. So the coronagraphs would not be able to spatially resolve the planet or even come close to it.In addition to that, there is the contrast problem. A terrestrial planet in the habitable zone of a mid M dwarf has a contrast of about 1 X 10^-8 dimmer than its host star. The coronagraphs on JWST are designed for about 1 X 10^-5 contract, since they are simple coronagrpahs without any wavefront control or diffraction suppression.WFIRST would get closer but the inner working angle of the coronagraph would still be too large for this planet.The best bet to study it in detail in the next few years would be if the planet transits its host star, which would allow JWST to use Transmission or Emission Spectroscopy on it.
Wouldn't the James Webb Space Telescope be able to get a picture of this planet? The star is just a red dwarf.
...Quote from: Robotbeat on 08/24/2016 06:09 pmMass beam propulsion.Unlike laser tech, it's scalable to crewed missions as well (without Singularity-level resources).I must say don't like the idea of shooting relativistic bullets at a manned starship over light-year ranges (you can't use actual particle beams; they have to be immune to beam spreading and smart enough to maneuver). Get one malfunctioning unit a little out of place, such that the ship can't compensate in time, and your mission is over.
Three BFR launches, ~900 tonnes. A high-isp burn into a multiple-slingshot trajectory and everything else into a Project Orion burn at the solar periapse. How much dV can we squeeze out of 900 tonnes of Teller-Ulam devices, and how tightly can we make the solar swingby for maximum boost?
I still think that the directed energy system presented at NIAC makes the most sense. 10 minutes to 0.2c for a wafer size probe, 25 years to Proxima b and all that with technology that is conceivable today.
Quote from: Elmar Moelzer on 08/27/2016 12:35 amI still think that the directed energy system presented at NIAC makes the most sense. 10 minutes to 0.2c for a wafer size probe, 25 years to Proxima b and all that with technology that is conceivable today.There are lots of problems with it. First of all, flyby at 0.2c is such a short time that you'd actually be better off with a really good telescope at the gravitational focus. Also, the forces involved would tear the probe to shreds. And such intense laser light even if nearly perfectly reflected would vaporize the sail. Also, getting diffraction-limited optics over such a large area and through the atmosphere seems unlikely to say the least.There are, in fact, several other concepts that also use technology conceivable today to achieve interstellar travel within decades.Though perhaps it's useful, if those challenges are solved. At very least, it'd be nice to actually map the interstellar medium around us so that we could send large probes or crewed missions out and be able to reliably use a mag-sail to slow down.
..Just the fact you have a single target to focus on makes a difference...
FYI reported on this very forum Dr Rodal reports after a lengthy peer review process Eagleworks latest paper on the EM drive has been accepted for publication in the American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics: AIAA Journal of Propulsion and Power.
Build a massive 30,000 km Soletta in orbit of Venus Sun L 4 and use the solar power to make a large amount of Antimatter and open up the solar system up to commerce and use the left over antimatter to power interstellar space probes . Pretty near term Technology just brute force economics.
Send an observatory directly away from Proxima Centaurus, and park it at the Sun's microlensing point (about half a light year from home). Use it to survey the whole Proxima system.Pros: great science, testbed for starship technology Cons: not much less difficult than building a starship
Send an observatory directly away from Proxima Centaurus, and park it at the Sun's microlensing point (about half a light year from home). Use it to survey the whole Proxima system.