Project Breakthrough Starshot - jumping the shark?

[anonymous-user]

BreakthroughStartShot


I'm not even sure where to start! Ok, it's got some pretty serious names on board, who no doubt are taking a nice little cut of the initial $100M stake, but there are so many practical issues it seems that it's doomed to failure to me!

[anonymous-user]

RobDickinson said:

Max_Torque said:

but there are so many practical issues it seems that it's doomed to failure to me!

Solving the practical issues is a big part of the project right? We have to start somewhere and the sooner we start the better.

I agree, but "solving" a problem requires the solution to that problem to be within (or at least close too) our current scientific, political, and financial capability. The requirements for Startshot are so far outside current practical technology that i don't see how you can actually solve them.

For example, the 1g payload? Can you develop an electronics package, that'll survive 20 years in space, have the capability to send radio data back across 4 light years, have suitable sensor capability, and weigh about 1g? Sorry, but i don't think you can.

What about the sail that must gather 6GW laser power without itself being destroyed?

What about building, and targeting that 6GW laser?

How will the crafts trajectory be controlled?

How does it slow down when it gets to it's target (without any onboard thrusters, a tiny error in initial trajectory will cause it to probably end up in the wrong solar system!!)


The challenges are incredible, and make putting a man on the moon (which took 10 years, a cold war and around 25B$(1973)) look easy.....

Then we get to the crux of the matter? What does this project actually enable? Clearly it is NOT practically scaleable, so the tech can never send large craft to the stars, and we can and have, learn a lot of information through basic astronomy techniques (radio telescopes/spectroscopy etc).

It's like the Apollo project imo, but without the political weight to back it up (ie, Apollo was really about the USA landing the first man on the moon, as a statement to communism in the cold war, rather than about the secondary scientific aims. Those politics drove the project, and hence when it was achieved, the project lost it's way and didn't really know what to do with itself. ie, what do you do on the moon when you've already been there once??)

Edited by anonymous-user on Friday 16th September 11:08

[anonymous-user]

Atomic12C said:

Breaking down a mobile phone, stripping away the casing, the screen, the keaypad, microphone, all the human interface..... its said already that the majority of the 'stuff' that does anything is not much more that a gram or two.

said by whom? i design electronics or a living, and the bare die of the processor is about 5g from a typical ARM processor. And on it's own, the bare die is pointless. What about the clock, the i/o, the power, what about radiation hardening? In fact, even bright light can cause a bare die based processor (ie non encapsulated) to reset........

And how do you make a radio transmitted with a 4 light year range that is say 0.25g and even that's a quarter of your mass budget?

sorry, but even with a jump to quantum computing it's pretty much impossible.

Atomic12C said:

These are some of the main components for the whole project to succeed.
This tech will be the main areas whereby the large sums of money will go to develop.
The material and laser infrastructure may not yet exist, but its not far from the scope of reality to develop it. We are making large steps forward in material tech at the moment and also large steps forward in laser tech. (Laser tech has come a long way with nuclear fusion pursuits for example).

the cynic in me thinks this might be one bit of the project that gets funded. After all, a 6GW laser, capable of hitting a tiny object in earth object is worth it's weight in gold to the US military..........

Atomic12C said:

Bah - glad these guys don't have this mindset only joking.
But its always part of humanity to have questions. Some questions are only going to be answered by having the means to explore.
Its always nice in science to have theory/measurements confirmed by actual empirical data. The amount of data that could be sent back not only at the 'probe/drone' destination but also en-route should be amazing.

Whilst i agree that science shouldn't close its eyes and stand still, i'm also practical enough to know that when you are resource limited (budget and political will in this case) it makes sense to spend the money on the things that provide the largest bang-for-buck. Instead of trying to develop these interplanetary craft, with their highly dubious chance of success and limited return, lets spend the money on science that is proven to return. ie, bigger better radio telescopes, robotic exploration within our solar system, and low cost, safe, Earth orbital insertion vehicles (as many a program has proven, the first 150odd KM of a space mission are the hardest/most dangerous ;-)