Interstellar VASIMR Bussard ramjet scoop powered by fusion

[Stormbringer]

When these sorts of thing come up even in articles i see very low albeit relativistic velocities for fusion drives of any sort. And i wonder if the people discussing fusion drives or making articles on it are taking into account all relevant developments in the technology?

For example advances in magnetic nozzle designs have doubled or more than doubled the top end of anything that uses a magnetic nozzle that can use that particular advance in design. That would be various plasma and ion drives, fusion drives and future antimatter or AM augmented drives.

So when i see an article positing a 500y or greater trip time for the most near nearby stars i am immediately dismayed and on second thoughts i wonder if they know about the magnetic nozzle research and other research that should greatly reduce the trip time estimates involved.

I am not certain this is the same tech evolution i was talking about but here is an example that involved beamed core antimatter engines. i do not think it is out of bounds to assume that any design that uses a large magnetic nozzle would derive nearly identical benefits from using the optimization.

http://newatlas.com/beamed-core-antimatter-propulsion/22654/

So i do not think it is out of bounds to expect a doubling or tripling of fusion (or etc) propulsion velocities using similar nozzles. At those velocities it would not take X hundred years to get to the nearest stars. instead it would take x hundred years to get to the stars beyond the immediate usual aspirational stellar destinations.

[IRobot]

Any trip time to the nearest stars over 50 years is a bit useless, as the probe risks being beaten by probes with newer technology.

[savuporo]

Any trip time to the nearest stars over 50 years is a bit useless, as the probe risks being beaten by probes with newer technology.

So Voyagers will be overtaken in next 10 years ?

[Phil Stooke]

" the probe risks being beaten "

Taking risks is what we do.  If we don't, we risk it not happening at all.

[KelvinZero]

" the probe risks being beaten "
Taking risks is what we do.  If we don't, we risk it not happening at all.

Fortunately there are lots of interesting goals and targets between here and there. Becoming interplanetary is one, sending probes to the Kuiper belt and then the Oort cloud is another. We may soon even have found another major planet belonging to this solar system to visit, with moons and everything.

Maybe our first probe to another star will be like Voyager, something that has done it's primary mission and just keeps going.

[A_M_Swallow]

Any trip time to the nearest stars over 50 years is a bit useless, as the probe risks being beaten by probes with newer technology.

So Voyagers will be overtaken in next 10 years ?

Launch the faster probe on SLS and give it nuclear electric propulsion. It may take a few years but it will catch Voyager up.

[savuporo]

Any trip time to the nearest stars over 50 years is a bit useless, as the probe risks being beaten by probes with newer technology.

So Voyagers will be overtaken in next 10 years ?

Launch the faster probe on SLS and give it nuclear electric propulsion. It may take a few years but it will catch Voyager up.

I was asking the question somewhat sarcastically, apologies. For whatever reason, people keep misjudging how slowly space technology actually moves, especially for things that go to beyond earth orbit.

In this simple sentence of 'give it nuclear electric propulsion' there is at least a decade of development and barely a test flight tucked away, so catching up to Voyagers in 10 years is simply not feasible.

Remember, the state of the art in deep space propulsion is still pressure fed hypergolic rocket, with a rare small ion thruster in between.

[hop]

Launch the faster probe on SLS and give it nuclear electric propulsion. It may take a few years but it will catch Voyager up.

Highly unlikely we could pass the Voyagers in 10 years with SLS and NEP, but that's beside the point: Yeah, with enough money and effort, we could have launched something that would have passed the voyagers, but in 40 years, we haven't, and we don't have any serious plans to build anything that will pass them, ever.

It's not hard to imagine interstellar probes ending up the same way: We figure out how to get to, say 10% c, and send something toward Alpha Centauri. After that, technology improves incrementally, and for 10x the money we could build something that would get there first, but no one does because it's not worth the expense.

Chemical LVs provide a similar analogy: In 1960, one could easily assume that technology would continue to advance at the same breakneck pace and nothing designed in 1960 would be relevant by 2010. In fact, many smart people at the time did assume exactly that, but they were wrong.

The "no point in planning 50 year missions because technological advances will make them irrelevant" argument sounds nice, but it isn't supported by history.

[BeamRider]

I am not going to add my uninformed opinion, save to observe that factually, a youngster could have watched the Wright's first flight at Kitty Hawk as a twelve year old, and Armstrong and Aldrin walk on the Moon on TV in his early 80s. Perhaps someone did!?

[Basto]

Any trip time to the nearest stars over 50 years is a bit useless, as the probe risks being beaten by probes with newer technology.

So Voyagers will be overtaken in next 10 years ?

You may want to read that statement again. I am pretty sure the Voyagers are not reaching another star in 10 years (more like 40,000). 

Even if it took us another 500 years to accelerate a probe to a reasonable fraction of c then we would surpass the voyagers relatively quickly.

[savuporo]

Any trip time to the nearest stars over 50 years is a bit useless, as the probe risks being beaten by probes with newer technology.

So Voyagers will be overtaken in next 10 years ?

You may want to read that statement again. I am pretty sure the Voyagers are not reaching another star in 10 years (more like 40,000). 

Even if it took us another 500 years to accelerate a probe to a reasonable fraction of c then we would surpass the voyagers relatively quickly.

No i think you misread the statement. The implication i got is that there is this arbitrary 50 year technology advancement horizon that makes everything before that obsolete and irrelevant and pointless. The reality though is that there are elements of spaceflight that haven't changed much in 50 years at all. Nothing to do with Voyagers relative velocity to its home star system.
Next Grand Tour opportunity will come around in 2156 or so. If i had any hopes of living that long, I'd almost want to make a bet that the probe we'll send out at that time, if any, won't be all that different from Voyagers.