Bad News: Interstellar Travel May Remain in Science Fiction

by Ian O'Neill on August 19, 2008

The Daedalus star ship, proposed in the 1970s, would propel itself forward using controlled fusion explosions (Nick Stevens, www.starbase1.co.uk)

The Daedalus star ship, proposed in the 1970s, would propel itself forward using controlled fusion explosions (Nick Stevens, www.starbase1.co.uk)


Some sobering news from a recent rocket science conference: It is highly improbable that humans will ever explore beyond the Solar System. This downbeat opinion comes from the Joint Propulsion Conference in Hartford, Connecticut, where future space propulsion challenges were discussed and debated. It is widely acknowledged that any form of interstellar travel would require huge advances in technology, but it would seem that the advances required are in the realms of science fiction and are not feasible. Using current technology would take tens of thousands of years, and even advanced concepts could take hundreds. But above all else, there is the question of fuel: How could a trip to Proxima Centauri be achieved if we’d need 100 times more energy than the entire planet currently generates?

In a previous article on the Universe Today, I explored how long it would take to travel to the nearest star using the slowest mode of transportation (the ion driven 1998 Deep Space 1 mission) and the fastest mode of transportation (the solar gravitational accelerated 1976 Helios 2 mission) currently available. I also discussed the theoretical possibility of using nuclear pulse propulsion (a series of fusion bombs dropped behind an interplanetary spaceship to give thrust), much like the 1970′s Daedalus star ship concept (pictured top).

Unfortunately, the ion drive option would take a whopping 81,000 years to get to Proxima Centauri, our nearest star, and using the Sun for a gravitational assist would still take us at least 19,000 years to reach our destination. That is 2,700 to 600 generations, certainly a long-term commitment! To put these figures into perspective, 2,700 generations ago, homo sapiens had not developed the ability to communicate by speech; 600 generations ago the Neanderthals had only recently become extinct. The nuclear pulse propulsion option seems far better taking only 85 years to travel to our nearest star. Still, this is a very long trip (let’s hope they’d offer business class at least…).

Already there are huge challenges facing the notion of travelling to Proxima Centauri, but in a recent gathering of experts in the field of space propulsion, there are even more insurmountable obstacles to mankind’s spread beyond the Solar System. In response to the idea we might make the Proxima trek in a single lifetime, Paulo Lozano, an assistant professor of aeronautics and astronautics at MIT and conference deligate said, “In those cases, you are talking about a scale of engineering that you can’t even imagine.”

OK, so the speed simply isn’t there for a quick flight over 4.3 light years. But there is an even bigger problem than that. How would these interstellar spaceships be fuelled? According to Brice N. Cassenti, an associate professor with the Department of Engineering and Science at Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, at least 100 times the total energy output of the entire world would be required for the voyage. “We just can’t extract the resources from the Earth,” Cassenti said during his conference presentation. “They just don’t exist. We would need to mine the outer planets.”

For mankind to extend its reach into the stars, we need to come up with a better plan. Even the most advanced forms of propulsion (even anti-matter engines) cannot make the gap seem any less massive. Suddenly the thought of a warp drive seems more attractive…

Original source: Wired

  • dollhopf

    Mr Demetrius, you are right and wrong in the very same instant. Why, instead of refering to “archeological digs” as facts, don’t you just stay in the present? Look at the nowadays “temple priests” in Iran and you will find it much easier to strengthen your argument. All the key positions in the Irani economy are occupied by the mullahs. Is it okay for you, when I say that the practise of the religious regime in Teheran gives evidence to your opinion?

    On the other hand, why is it a fact “that religion has held us back thru the ages”. I don’t see the “fact”. In the contrary, “facts” would also “prove” that over ages religion trained humans to respect and tolerate the neighbour, his life, his wife, his goods, his opinion, and so make it possible to life in peace together, thus constituting the requirements for trade and wealth.

    The big thing is that the most “godless” regimes on earth concentrated all power and control in their Central Committees, thus exactly proving that “EVIL” is not only a feature of religion but also of atheism.

  • dollhopf

    Dear Mr. Demetrius,

    it looks like my brain has a dislike to distinguish between the “v”‘s and “f”‘s as in “life” and “live” (among others). Thus, sorry for your inconveniences when reading my response.

  • Markus Demetrius

    What purpose does a magnetosphere provide other than a shield from ionized particles coming from a star? What about “neutral” atoms, and molecules floating in space? Dust? The shielding provided by many miles of asteroid rock is not only good cover, but also camouflage…

  • Markus Demetrius

    dollhopf – many good points, thank you.

    I do doubt, however, that we can credit religion as the cause of mutual cooperation, and as far as peace goes I’d wager that religion has caused many more wars than it’s prevented.

    Communist and totalitarian regimes outlaw religion because its inherent authority is a threat to their need for absolute power, not out of ideological reasons. Their atheism results from domination rather than logic and rational thought…

    IT’S ALL FUN AND GAMES UNTIL SOMEBODY LOSES AN EYE

  • dollhopf

    Markus Demetrius wrote:

    “IT’S ALL FUN AND GAMES UNTIL SOMEBODY LOSES AN EYE”

    Agree, and the raison d’être of reason is to prevent the “funny gamers” from taking off the gloves.

    But nevertheless I know that we are far off topics, just one more hint. You claimed:

    “Why was Latin the official language of the Catholic Church for so long? Because most locals had no idea what “God” wanted, but the priests could fake it.”

    But the clue is, that despite the Catholic Church insisted on the dominance of the Latin language, it never excluded somebody from learning it. Quite the contrary! The educational system of the Middle Age, which wasn’t, by the way, a Dark Age, trained the students in the use of Latin. Latin was the lingua franca of our past, as English is the universal language of the present.

    Latin was the scientific language of Copernicus (“De Revolutionibus Orbium Coelestium”), of Kepler(“Harmonice Mundi.”), and of Newton (“Philosophiae Naturalis Principia Mathematica”). It is true that Galileo Galilei was an exception, who used a local language, but THE WORLD only got knowledge of his work, after it was translated into Latin by Matthias Bernegger.

    Latin was the key to our cultural heritage, the key to absorb the keen ancient Greek and Latin thinkers, Euklid and Aristoteles, Cicero and all the hundreds of others.

    Don’t punish the Catholic Church for torturing mankind with Latin. This “treatment” opened the way to the Renaissance, the resurrection of our cultural background since Thales of Milet, just because one and the other stubborn priest made rough jokes with it. Not guilty, Your Highness!

  • Markus Demetrius

    dollhopf – My bad. I admit it when I’m wrong. You are correct about the Latin, it was a bad example and I really shouldn’t type when in an altered state.

    YOU GET THE TRICORDER, I’LL GRAB THE WALLET

  • dollhopf

    Markus Demetrius Says: “You are correct about the Latin, it was a bad example”

    Never mind, Mr. Demetrius, because I understand your distaste for religion. The Taliban, for example, give much reason to defeat religion.

  • Markus Demetrius

    Getting back on-topic, I can understand chemical rocket scientists saying that their particular field will never get us to the stars, however I doubt most of them are so short-sighted as to suggest that the future will bring no significent advances in other types of propulsion, perhaps types we have yet to imagine. I believe that the skepticism evinced in this article results from the narrow-mindedness of the author, Ian O’Neill. His treatise reads like an article written by a Creationist or someone who believes that we’ve already learned all there is to learn. Shame on you, O’Neill.

    HUNG LIKE EINSTEIN, SMART AS A HORSE

  • dollhopf

    Mr. Demetrius wrote:

    “I believe that the skepticism evinced in this article results from the narrow-mindedness of the author, Ian O’Neill.”

    To be honest, this sentence is hardly to sympathise with.

    After we both agreed, that at least the use of the Latin language in the Catholic Church is not the reason that we are not “cruising the stars on vacation” nowadays, you concentrate your assignment of blame on the author of the article, whom you attest intellectual inadequacy therefor. What’s all that in aid of?

  • Markus Demetrius

    dollhopf – Chip on your shoulder?

    You are connecting dots that are apples and oranges. Perhaps you misread me – I’m not assigning blame for our lack of progress on Mr. O’Neill, that’s just plain silly.

    I see that most above reader comments are blaming the pessimistic TONE of the article on the rocket scientists and I think they are wrong to do so. It was the author who decided what his theme was, what questions to ask, and how to put responses together. O/Neill includes estimated projected travel times using only propulsion engines CURRENTLY in use, but the very first sentence in the article declares “It is highly improbable that humans will EVER explore beyond the solar system”. He obviously either has an agenda or is, as I said, narrowminded. In my personal view it’s both. I doubt narrow-mindedness looks good on the resume of a rocket scientist/engineer, thus my conclusion.

    You ask what’s all that in aid of? Just to point out that all the venting I see here is probably not aimed properly.

    INDISTINGUISHABLE FROM MAGIC

  • Tyler Durden

    “I doubt narrow-mindedness looks good on the resume of a rocket scientist/engineer, thus my conclusion.”

    Quite the contrary. Most aerospace companies * want * engineers that can only think in terms of current technology and will only fiddle with what already exists instead of dreaming of what could be.

    Dreams cost money. New designs fail. Spectacularly. The longer you can stretch the lifespan of a rocket model, the better.

    I think if they do in fact psychologically profile engineer job applicants they would disqualify dreamers and idea men and accept people who can only think in bits-and-bytes.

  • Torbjörn Larsson, OM

    @ Yael Dragwyia;

    consider quantum connectedness, a real phenomenon that “violates” the speed of light.

    Except that it explicitly doesn’t, and can’t, due to Lorenz invariance. Something I suspect you know since you put the claim inside a parenthesis.

  • Torbjörn Larsson, OM

    @ dollhopf:

    I do believe that personal moral rotting is a basis for the corruption of a society and that corruption leads to decay and that decay is a form of “dark age”. I also belief that one or the other form of personal religiosity is a medicine which heals rotting.

    What is a “personal moral”? Moral is the behaviour that large groups of populations follows. What can influence it varies, as different behaviors are sensitive to different parameters. Most often we use legal actions to make the most influence, and that is a secular activity.

  • Markus Demetrius

    A question to all:

    I’m relatively new at “forums and comments”. If I make quite a few significant points in defense of a central theme and then someone disputes only one of those points/ideas but says nothing more, should I assume that the main gist of my comment was accepted as plausible, or that the person just ran out of ammunition?

    I’ve written in half a dozen or so forums, and only one person who obviously disagreed with my views has offered point-by-point rebuttal.

    No, I’m not picking a fight, but I do admit to feeling at times like an educated atheist arguing religion with your average half-educated christian.

    YOUR NAME HERE

  • dollhopf

    Torbjörn Larsson,

    honestly, I find it somewhat weird that you have to ask what “personal moral” means.

  • Torbjörn Larsson, OM

    dollhopf,

    I have proposed a description of morals from which “personal morals” can easily be derived. But as this description is problematic for your earlier claim (as in: I reject your description), my description and yours differ, which is why I asked for yours – in case you were interested in a continuing discussion.

  • dollhopf

    “my description and yours differ, which is why I asked for yours”

    Question: Because you know my description, otherwise you would not know that it does differ from yours, why then do you ask for?

  • Torbjörn Larsson, OM

    @ dollhopf:

    All I know is that you claim that personal moral “rotting” is a basis for the corruption of a society, which is the point where my description differs. This is how I know that your definition of morals, whatever it is, is different from mine (which I have stated for the purpose of a discussion).

    But if you decline to discuss what a moral is, for whatever reason, fine – it is generally pointless to claim that specific concepts are correct or fallacious if they can’t be tested. What I can do, and have done, is to show for a casual reader why (your concept of) “personal moral” is not an important basis for causing societal problems, and why then personal (or organized) religion isn’t helpful. That is enough for me.

    [Ironically one can factually show the reverse, that religion is an important basis for causing societal problems, but it seems such a discussion is now rendered moot.]

  • dollhopf

    There is no need to be so impatient, Torbjörn. You waste my time as well ;-)

    Every common lexicon contains a sufficiently just definition of the concept of moral. Mutual understanding would be no problem, if you were not in need of an own “description” of moral, which is from the beginning as purpose-built as it is inadequate. I wonder that you did not also ask for a “description” of the term “corruption of a society”.

    Stop intentionally generating a lack of understanding. Then try again.

  • Markus Demetrius

    dollhopf – Past societies’s demises can be attributed to moral collapse? How special. Not to be attributed to actual measurable factors like drought, war, disease, economic factors? I suppose America’s demise will be from the same cause, rather than the Christian fundamentalists voting by values, instead of issues. Climate change is our grandchildren’s problem, not ours, right? May I assume by your past writing that you’re a person of faith? You superstitious cowards make me sick. As long as Bush says “terrorist” a dozen times in his speeches your lot shits your pants and cedes your constitutional rights, same as Hitler’s followers did, so you’ll be “safe”.

    Don’t EVER try to proselytise your sick morals to anyone in front of me, I’ll eat you alive and your pretentious eleven dollar words also. CHICKENHAWK COWARDS like you belong as human shields on the front line, to make the enemy pause before shooting at our heroic troops. They may be there for no good reason, but they’re heroic nonetheless.

    Hope I didn’t offend, you seem like a nice guy. Really sweet, in a Heisenberg kind of way.

    PRE-EMPTIVE COUNTERSTRIKE

Previous post:

Next post: