Official NASA response to AC by 2100

  Alpha Centauri Forums
  The Game
  Official NASA response to AC by 2100

profile | register | prefs | faq | search

Author Topic:   Official NASA response to AC by 2100

Hanno posted 02-23-99 03:42 PM ET
At 12:45 PM 2/21/99 -0500, you wrote:
>On a message board someone touched of the topic of whether AC could be
>reached (given the want to go) by 2100. This is assuming that a engine was
>designed that would travel about 1/10th the speed of light and if launched
>at about 2060, it would arrive by 2100.
>
>Thank you.
>
Any such plans are purely speculative at this point. We have no such
engine and no idea how to design one. Communications between the
spacecraft and the Earth would be problematical at best, and the scientific
returns from such a mission would be of questionable value.
Our own solar system is a fascinating place. By 2100 we may have the
ability to send human crews to explore the moons of the outer planets. I
doubt that we will ever have unlimited resources for space exploration, so
we will have to pick and choose among many worthwhile projects those that
have the greatest promise of increasing our knowledge in ways important to
us. Personally (not speaking for NASA), I do not see a mission to Alpha
Centauri as "making the cut" by that time.
Thanks for your interest.
Woody Smith
NASA HQ WWW Curator

Shadow posted 02-23-99 06:56 PM ET
"...and the scientific returns from such a mission would be of questionable value."
There is no such thing as scientific data of questionable value. All data is important!
Shadow
Magnus posted 02-23-99 07:01 PM ET
I think that the most important thing is that it is fun. And it is! So lets do it now!
Shining1 posted 02-23-99 07:02 PM ET
Shadow: Go read Morgan's Views in Applied Relativity!
A trip to AC would be rather like a trip to the Arizona crater: "Okay, we're here. Okay, we've seen it. Now what?"
Except billions of times more expensive.
All data is useful, but often not worth gathering. Sending a fully self contained vessel to a planetless (remember, SMAC is fiction) double star would achieve very little. And cost very much.
Spoe posted 02-23-99 07:16 PM ET
"Sending a fully self contained vessel to a planetless (remember, SMAC is fiction) double star would achieve very little."
Planetless is a touch strong -- we just don't know at this point if there are planets around either AC A or AC B.
As far NASA's response, they seem to be answering the question, "Will we go to AC before 2100?", not what has been debated here, "Can we go to AC before 2100?".
Shining1 posted 02-23-99 07:37 PM ET
Spoe: True. But given the massive difficulty of achieving a stable orbit under the circumstances, I think the odds are heavily against it. (Maybe a touch pessimistic, but then again, maybe a more realistic approach.
Go read Zakhorov.)
As for 'Can we go before 2100', the physical answer would seem to be YES. But with the engineering demands of the situation, we can't tell.
Spoe posted 02-23-99 08:03 PM ET
Shining1:
Actually, per some NASA websote or other(I forget the URL right now), there is a sizable region of stable orbits extending approximately 2 AU from either star.Seeing as the equivalent radiation point for AC A is well withing this, at ~1.1 AU IIRC, I wouldn't be too surprised to find some decent rocky planets in the life zone of one or the other.
To close this thread, click here (moderator or admin only).


Hop to:

Contact Us | Alpha Centauri Home

Powered by: Ultimate Bulletin Board, Version 5.18
© Madrona Park, Inc., 1998.

Author	Topic: Official NASA response to AC by 2100
Hanno	posted 02-23-99 03:42 PM ET At 12:45 PM 2/21/99 -0500, you wrote: >On a message board someone touched of the topic of whether AC could be >reached (given the want to go) by 2100. This is assuming that a engine was >designed that would travel about 1/10th the speed of light and if launched >at about 2060, it would arrive by 2100. > >Thank you. > Any such plans are purely speculative at this point. We have no such engine and no idea how to design one. Communications between the spacecraft and the Earth would be problematical at best, and the scientific returns from such a mission would be of questionable value. Our own solar system is a fascinating place. By 2100 we may have the ability to send human crews to explore the moons of the outer planets. I doubt that we will ever have unlimited resources for space exploration, so we will have to pick and choose among many worthwhile projects those that have the greatest promise of increasing our knowledge in ways important to us. Personally (not speaking for NASA), I do not see a mission to Alpha Centauri as "making the cut" by that time. Thanks for your interest. Woody Smith NASA HQ WWW Curator
Shadow	posted 02-23-99 06:56 PM ET "...and the scientific returns from such a mission would be of questionable value." There is no such thing as scientific data of questionable value. All data is important! Shadow
Magnus	posted 02-23-99 07:01 PM ET I think that the most important thing is that it is fun. And it is! So lets do it now!
Shining1	posted 02-23-99 07:02 PM ET Shadow: Go read Morgan's Views in Applied Relativity! A trip to AC would be rather like a trip to the Arizona crater: "Okay, we're here. Okay, we've seen it. Now what?" Except billions of times more expensive. All data is useful, but often not worth gathering. Sending a fully self contained vessel to a planetless (remember, SMAC is fiction) double star would achieve very little. And cost very much.
Spoe	posted 02-23-99 07:16 PM ET "Sending a fully self contained vessel to a planetless (remember, SMAC is fiction) double star would achieve very little." Planetless is a touch strong -- we just don't know at this point if there are planets around either AC A or AC B. As far NASA's response, they seem to be answering the question, "Will we go to AC before 2100?", not what has been debated here, "Can we go to AC before 2100?".
Shining1	posted 02-23-99 07:37 PM ET Spoe: True. But given the massive difficulty of achieving a stable orbit under the circumstances, I think the odds are heavily against it. (Maybe a touch pessimistic, but then again, maybe a more realistic approach. Go read Zakhorov.) As for 'Can we go before 2100', the physical answer would seem to be YES. But with the engineering demands of the situation, we can't tell.
Spoe	posted 02-23-99 08:03 PM ET Shining1: Actually, per some NASA websote or other(I forget the URL right now), there is a sizable region of stable orbits extending approximately 2 AU from either star.Seeing as the equivalent radiation point for AC A is well withing this, at ~1.1 AU IIRC, I wouldn't be too surprised to find some decent rocky planets in the life zone of one or the other.