Remove this ad

NASA’s Ames Director Announces “100 Year Starship”

by Jason Rhian on October 20, 2010

Want to stay on top of all the space news? Follow @universetoday on Twitter

The Director of NASA’s Ames Center, Pete Worden has announced an initiative to move space flight to the next level. This plan, dubbed the “Hundred Year Starship,” has received $100,000 from NASA and $ 1 million from the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA). He made his announcement on Oct. 16. Worden is also hoping to include wealthy investors in the project. NASA has yet to provide any official details on the project.

Worden also has expressed his belief that the space agency was now directed toward settling other planets. However, given the fact that the agency has been redirected toward supporting commercial space firms, how this will be achieved has yet to be detailed. Details that have been given have been vague and in some cases contradictory.

The Ames Director went on to expound how these efforts will seek to emulate the fictional starships seen on the television show Star Trek. He stated that the public could expect to see the first prototype of a new propulsion system within the next few years. Given that NASA’s FY 2011 Budget has had to be revised and has yet to go through Appropriations, this time estimate may be overly-optimistic.

Remove this ad

One of the ideas being proposed is a microwave thermal propulsion system. This form of propulsion would eliminate the massive amount of fuel required to send crafts into orbit. The power would be “beamed” to the space craft. Either a laser or microwave emitter would heat the propellant, thus sending the vehicle aloft. This technology has been around for some time, but has yet to be actually applied in a real-world vehicle.

The project is run by Dr. Kevin L.G. Parkin who described it in his PhD thesis and invented the equipment used. Along with him are David Murakami and Creon Levit. One of the previous workers on the program went on to found his own company in the hopes of commercializing the technology used.

For Worden, the first locations that man should visit utilizing this revolutionary technology would not be the moon or even Mars. Rather he suggests that we should visit the red planet’s moons, Phobos and Deimos. Worden believes that astronauts can be sent to Mars by 2030 for around $10 billion – but only one way. The strategy appears to resemble the ‘Faster-Better-Cheaper’ craze promoted by then-NASA Administrator Dan Goldin during the 1990s.

DARPA is a branch of the U.S. Department of Defense whose purview is the development of new technology to be used by the U.S. military. Some previous efforts that the agency has undertaken include the first hypertext system, as well as other computer-related developments that are used everyday. DARPA has worked on space-related projects before, working on light-weight satellites (LIGHTSAT), the X-37 space plane, the FALCON Hypersonic Cruise Vehicle (HCV) and a number of other programs.

The Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency or DARPA has been involved with a number of advanced technology projects. Image Credit: DARPA

Source: Kurzweil

Remove this ad

Tagged as: DARPA, future technology, Technology

← Older Comments
Newer Comments →
  • Roen

    @Maxwell: Living on mars has had a huge influence over many people. It’s the kind of fascination that causes smart and dumb people alike to think some really stupid things. Including colonizing it. What NASA is doing right now is awesome. We’ve learned more dollar for dollar by sending cheap robotic equipment to study the planet by proxy. Sure, *eventually* humans will have to go there to learn more, but that can and will only happen after our current means (robotic probes) have been exhausted.

    This is the same with interstellar probes as opposed to a starship. It was completely illogical for Worden to make such an announcement when we haven’t even sent our first probe to a nearby star system.

    FYI, yes, I do support this. Probes are cheaper, safer and can travel faster than any human crew. The sheer logistics involved with sustaining a human crew for the length of time it will require is massively prohibitive.

    So, no, they won’t colonize Mars (more than a few scientists), or build a starship, within the next 100 years simply because we haven’t used up the remote probe method just yet.

    The final point I wish to make is simply that by sending probes in first (locally or interstellar), we are gathering valuable information. We need to know everything we can about a place before risking human lives. In the case for mars, we need to know if there is water, what the soil is like, what’s in the atmosphere, etc. In the case of a starship we need to know if there are any natural phenomenon that may kill the crew with massive amounts of radiation, just as an example. Who knows what else lies just outside our stellar bubble.

    And for the record, utopia is impossible, humans would never allow it.

  • Aqua

    Microwave or laser energy beamed from Earth or the Moon, eh? That’s before something like a hurricane or tornado, earthquake, lightning strike, meteor strike, giant CME or other natural calamity takes out the power source for several months or years.. right? I think I’d prefer any method that includes ‘self propelled’ as a keyword.

    I’m starting to like the idea of using Sol’s magnetic field for thrust! Its recently been reported that the Solar wind is ‘shepherded’ and accelerated into Sol’s equatorial plane by that field. Just saying…. generate a big enough mag. bubble and hitch a ride in the flow!

  • Roen

    @tacitus: I’ll start by redirecting you to the very beginning of *our* interactions.

    “What the heck are you talking about, Roen. I’m as liberal is it gets (in America anyway) and care a great deal about the fate of the Earth and its people, but even I can see that your spouting nonsense.”

    Yes, I was harsh on both Worden and Dave Finton. Maybe it was these two things that got your hackles up. Maybe it’s not related to that at all and you’re simply a jerk. I didn’t start my interaction with you. *You* started it with me. You started the insults by calling my valid premise nonsense. Clearly it is not, or 4 others who seem to be fairly intelligent and reasonable would also consider it nonsense. But they don’t, do they?

    Anyone looking back will see me responding nicely to those who have responded nicely to me and harshly to those who responded harshly to me.

    Dave Finton was at least a little less deliberate and called the premise “wrong-headed and myopic”, which is still an insult. I responded in kind.

    dog_boy_bastard in hindsight may not have actually been addressing me so my response to him may have been out of turn. Sorry, @dog… just saw that now.

    Hellvis replied to me harsher than all three so far, so, yeah, I fired back in kind he deserved it.

    Spoodle58 and cipater. notice how they managed to agree with you WITHOUT being insulting? Learn from it.

    HeadAroundU tells me to STFU twice. I replied in kind.

    Dominion also managed give a very well delivered rebuttal, and not only *didn’t* come off as a belligerent jerk, but was actually very nice about it. Learn from it.

    Maxwell also delivered a non-hostile opinion, and take a look how I responded to him. Notice that you get out what you put in? You delivered crap and that’s all I’m giving you back.

    The only nonsense is this whole interaction with you. Yes, I can be pretty harsh to what I believe to be blazing stupid. Meh, whatever, I do what I can to control it, but sometimes one little word, one little insulting word from one like you is enough to earn the remarks.

    You did not start this between us in an amicable manner, you’re incapable of seeing simple logic. We will never get along and if you won’t end this garbage I will.

    Reply if you wish, I don’t care. But your next reply will no longer earn my attention. Your input is worthless.

  • Uncle Fred

    I think this is a heated discussion I’ll stay out of…

  • Roen

    @Aqua: Pretty sweet idea. Michio kaku gives a great run down in his book “Physics of the Impossible” of propulsion methods. At the moment the best possible method with off the shelf tech we have now is nuclear drive. But no one is allowed to test anything nuclear in space. There’s also the problem of shielding against radiation.

    I think nuclear pulse is in the there too, where you drop a series of nukes behind your ship and the result propels you.

  • Jacqo

    @roen Dr kaku also explains that most of the technologies needed for different propulsion systems are hundreds of years in our future in pace with our advancements we have made…
    ive enjoyed this thread, unfortunately when one opinion is so radically different than another telling others that you are right and they arent just because you disagree wont get you anywhere
    so roen i ask you…. in 500 words or less what have YOU done personally to back up all your talk….

  • Roen

    @Jacqo: Of course it’s hundreds of years in the future no matter the type of propulsion. Moral issues aside, I was merely stating that nuclear drive would be the quickest to develop if it were legal, as stated by Dr. Kaku.

    “in 500 words or less what have YOU done personally to back up all your talk….”

    You need to restate the question, unclear what you’re asking.

  • Aqua

    @ ROEN – So far all I’ve come up with is using an expanding cloud of charged particles then ‘attaching’ that expanding mass to a mag. field….

  • Roen

    @Aqua: Where do you feel you’ll get the charged particles form?

  • Aqua

    The energy source might be a superconducting shaped charge sequential detonation power source?

  • Aqua

    There are EMI weapons out there that can neutralize all electronic circuits within hundreds of miles based on that concept…

  • Roen

    @AQUA: Okay, so you’re thinking of an EMP to supply the particles? How will you power the EMP?

  • Roen

    EMI, sorry

  • Aqua

    Idea is to use a ‘Gatling gun’ like field generator to capture a directionally shaped and explosively expanding cloud of ionized particles.

  • Aqua

    We bought the basic concept from the Russians back in the late 80′s. A shaped copper cylinder surrounded by stainless steel tubing is taken to cryogenic temperatures. A shaped charge inside the copper cylinder is simultaneously detonated with the discharge from a high voltage condenser bank… lets talk output around 700 million amps!

  • Aqua

    oTay…so now you have to couple to an expanding magnetic wavefront with your magnetic self…

  • Roen

    You still need to get the initial power to do this, no? How will this be done?

  • Aqua

    Let Tesla do the magic… induction!

  • Nexus

    Let’s assume for the sake of argument that the planet is currently on a spiral towards destruction. I’m not quite so pessimistic, but let’s run with that. You, Roen, think it is morally reprehensible to spend money on solar system exploration and colonization instead of spending it on finding ways to fix the mess here. Do you think that exploring the Solar System will not yield any benefits in that? We are studying the atmospheres and geologies of Mars, Venus, Titan, etc. and in the process learning things about planets in general- including ours.

    If you want to send people on long missions to outer space you need to research things like efficient propulsion, better waste management, more robust electronics, better and cleaner power sources- all of these things will also find positive uses on Earth. Then there’s the fact that a giant space mission will require a spirit of international cooperation to pull off- and you’ll need that too to manage any meaningful fight against climate change.

    In my opinion, if you want to save the planet you can’t do much BETTER than to throw money at space research.

    Finally, I think you have been extremely unfair to Tacitus. You’ve called his points “straw-man arguments”, as though your inability to follow the thread of his though is his fault. You’ve called his opinions worthless and him a jerk, when your behaviour has been ten times more obnoxious than his, and you’ve set yourself up as some kind of tally-keeping arbiter of right and wrong which I find very arrogant and extremely annoying. Pull your head in, stop taking disagreement with your opinions as a personal affront, and start treating people- even ones you disagree with- with a bit of respect.

  • Maxwell

    @Roen
    …But what is the point of gathering data if its never going to be used?
    We support these probe missions mostly because it helps us plan for a broader future in space. At some point you have to practice what it would take to go other places and survive, at some point you have to go.
    Otherwise these are all pointless engineering challenges with little end value.

    We don’t really need to concern ourselves with why someone will go or how they will deal with the politics, economics, and emotional aspects. Those things will see to themselves once launch costs are down enough that people can afford the journey.
    The lower the costs, the sooner things will happen. The faster we fan out into space, the further we will start sending our probes.

← Older Comments
Newer Comments →

Previous post:

Next post: