No Wonder People Are Turning Into...
Society & Culture0 min ago
Is Finding Et Becoming A Viable Reality?
In an attempt to leapfrog the planets and vault into the interstellar age, a plan to send a fleet of robot spacecraft no bigger than iPhones to Alpha Centauri, the nearest star system, 4.37 light-years away, has been announced.
A rocket would deliver a “mother ship” carrying a thousand or so small probes to space. Once in orbit, the probes would unfold thin sails and then, propelled by powerful laser beams from Earth, set off across the universe.
Any returning signals would take 4 years to reach us, but it will take 20 years for the probes to reach Alpha Centauri as opposed to Voyager 1’s 70,000 years.
Exciting stuff!
http://
A rocket would deliver a “mother ship” carrying a thousand or so small probes to space. Once in orbit, the probes would unfold thin sails and then, propelled by powerful laser beams from Earth, set off across the universe.
Any returning signals would take 4 years to reach us, but it will take 20 years for the probes to reach Alpha Centauri as opposed to Voyager 1’s 70,000 years.
Exciting stuff!
http://
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by naomi24. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
Would have been nice if they'd let us know which of the myriad star systems out there they came from. But anyway.
At the moment this is only an idea, and even in practice they are only talking about tiny spacecraft. But it's an interesting concept. The most depressing thing about it is that it also puts a practical timeline of manned interstellar travel of "certainly" beyond my lifetime -- even supposing the leap from this journey to one with an astronaut in was a relatively minor one technologically, we'd at least have to wait about 25 years from the smaller probes setting off before you'd get any kind of funding for a similar journey with a man in.
I'm looking forward to the possibility of living to see a proof-of-principle that manned spaceflight beyond our solar system is doable, though. I'm not sure how far along this particular plan would take us, but a journey time of 20 years to the nearest system makes one of the more important hurdles significantly smaller (although then again, we're still fussing over manned journeys to Mars that last "only" 13 months or so, so still a very long way to go.)
At the moment this is only an idea, and even in practice they are only talking about tiny spacecraft. But it's an interesting concept. The most depressing thing about it is that it also puts a practical timeline of manned interstellar travel of "certainly" beyond my lifetime -- even supposing the leap from this journey to one with an astronaut in was a relatively minor one technologically, we'd at least have to wait about 25 years from the smaller probes setting off before you'd get any kind of funding for a similar journey with a man in.
I'm looking forward to the possibility of living to see a proof-of-principle that manned spaceflight beyond our solar system is doable, though. I'm not sure how far along this particular plan would take us, but a journey time of 20 years to the nearest system makes one of the more important hurdles significantly smaller (although then again, we're still fussing over manned journeys to Mars that last "only" 13 months or so, so still a very long way to go.)
Probably depends on what signal you had in mind. Scientists and engineers have got the hang of packing a great deal of advanced kit into a small space, but more likely all these probes will be able to do is send something close to a ping back once they had reached their destination, maybe with some attempt at encoding a time stamp so that you know when it was sent and so how far away the probe was, and a couple of pictures.
Beyond that, it seems to be simply about showing that it's possible to send probes to other star systems in a sensible amount of time, and once you've made it work once, you have more incentive to try again with something more specialised. And then all of the technical challenges that need to be solved first are worth doing anyway, not only for these spacecraft but also for more local uses (more efficient and long-lasting batteries, etc).
Beyond that, it seems to be simply about showing that it's possible to send probes to other star systems in a sensible amount of time, and once you've made it work once, you have more incentive to try again with something more specialised. And then all of the technical challenges that need to be solved first are worth doing anyway, not only for these spacecraft but also for more local uses (more efficient and long-lasting batteries, etc).
There was an amusing letter in the Times today about this. Space travel is hazardous enough already because of microdust, natural and artificial debris, etc, all of which puts any spaceship at serious risk of major damage. So, of course, advanced intelligent aliens capable of spaceflight will have developed defences against this, with for example an efficient "sweeper system". So I guess these small robots might just be blown up by the aliens' defences...
Well, I thought it was amusing anyway.
Well, I thought it was amusing anyway.
@Sandy Roe
// These 'eukaryotes', might they be described as a Divine Spark? //
Nope. They are cells containing organelles and are basically a design improvement over bacteria and archaea, where enzymes slosh around in solution, waiting for substrate molecules to bump into them, by chance. With organelles, the folds and structure act to produce a localised increase in concentration.
By analogy, a hospital brings bulk quantities of patients into close proximity with doctors, who can process them, serially, without having to move far, rather than wandering the streets, waiting for sickly folk to meet them, by chance. Improved reaction rate efficiency, is what organelles are all about.
Also bacteria etc have to passively wait for nutrients to reach their outer membrane and either diffuse in or be fetched inside by "active transport". Eukaryotes can move to reach a nutrient source and then do phagocytosis and digestion of particles way too big to pass through cell membranes.
Rather than identify my own take on "divine spark", the most I could do is think of where I would draw the line between inorganic chemical processes and something more ordered and capable of self-replication. However, I feel it is far more of a smudge than a line. Prion proteins self-replicate but I would hesitate to call them 'alive'. Viruses can be crystallised and aren't able to replicate independently of other life, so fail part of the definition yet they are complex enough to exploit DNA, in all its sophistication. Simultanously primitive and advanced and pushing the expression "life form" to its limits.
// These 'eukaryotes', might they be described as a Divine Spark? //
Nope. They are cells containing organelles and are basically a design improvement over bacteria and archaea, where enzymes slosh around in solution, waiting for substrate molecules to bump into them, by chance. With organelles, the folds and structure act to produce a localised increase in concentration.
By analogy, a hospital brings bulk quantities of patients into close proximity with doctors, who can process them, serially, without having to move far, rather than wandering the streets, waiting for sickly folk to meet them, by chance. Improved reaction rate efficiency, is what organelles are all about.
Also bacteria etc have to passively wait for nutrients to reach their outer membrane and either diffuse in or be fetched inside by "active transport". Eukaryotes can move to reach a nutrient source and then do phagocytosis and digestion of particles way too big to pass through cell membranes.
Rather than identify my own take on "divine spark", the most I could do is think of where I would draw the line between inorganic chemical processes and something more ordered and capable of self-replication. However, I feel it is far more of a smudge than a line. Prion proteins self-replicate but I would hesitate to call them 'alive'. Viruses can be crystallised and aren't able to replicate independently of other life, so fail part of the definition yet they are complex enough to exploit DNA, in all its sophistication. Simultanously primitive and advanced and pushing the expression "life form" to its limits.
@Cloverjo
// There might be microbes or bacteria type organisms, //
Personally, I would even see evidence of life on that level as a major leap forward. It would represent "test tube #2" and provide the replicability evidence to support what happened on the ancient earth as a *somewhat* inevitable process, stemming from organic chemistry. I'm going to confine that to carbon chemistry because enzymic processes with silicon-polymer compounds has yet to reach my attention.
I note that Huderon observes that creationists may take life elsewhere as confirmatory of a deity but that's because they are infernally irritating people who won't let go, even as evidence against mounts up.
// but I don't see anything greater being found //
Not anywhere or just not immediately next door?
I would support you in the second case because it would be analgous to seeking a lottery winner, starting with next door and having success straight away.
The probability of life in the universe is only high (in the Drake equation) because of the 10 billion multiplier, per galaxy. The basic probability of all the required, metaphorical, dice coming up with sufficient 6s for intelligent life is low.
Low probability, I need not add, is not a magical force which is capable of stopping things happening. We are privileged to be on the planet where all the required events happened in the right order and intelligence became more of a survival advantage than a calorific hindrance.
// There might be microbes or bacteria type organisms, //
Personally, I would even see evidence of life on that level as a major leap forward. It would represent "test tube #2" and provide the replicability evidence to support what happened on the ancient earth as a *somewhat* inevitable process, stemming from organic chemistry. I'm going to confine that to carbon chemistry because enzymic processes with silicon-polymer compounds has yet to reach my attention.
I note that Huderon observes that creationists may take life elsewhere as confirmatory of a deity but that's because they are infernally irritating people who won't let go, even as evidence against mounts up.
// but I don't see anything greater being found //
Not anywhere or just not immediately next door?
I would support you in the second case because it would be analgous to seeking a lottery winner, starting with next door and having success straight away.
The probability of life in the universe is only high (in the Drake equation) because of the 10 billion multiplier, per galaxy. The basic probability of all the required, metaphorical, dice coming up with sufficient 6s for intelligent life is low.
Low probability, I need not add, is not a magical force which is capable of stopping things happening. We are privileged to be on the planet where all the required events happened in the right order and intelligence became more of a survival advantage than a calorific hindrance.
Exciting? Ridiculous waste of money more like if it gets beyond talk. Cost of the project estimated 5-10 billion dollars. Laser has to generate 100 gigawatts of power for 2 minutes - i.e. as much energy as to launch the space shuttle and 100 times output of a nuclear power plant. Sails have to reflect laser light without absorbing any of its energy. As little as 1 part in 100,000 would vaporize the sail. So very probably not going to work.
and to achieve what? At best pictures 44 years later and at worst - Nothing.
and to achieve what? At best pictures 44 years later and at worst - Nothing.
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.