It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Unlike Kepler or COROT, this telescope is functioning very well still, so many of us are very disappointed by this decision. The cost of running MOST each year is also relatively low, at just $450K per year. I believe Jaymie is looking for ways to slim that down in efforts to fund MOST privately or via a crowd-funding platform. [We’ll track this effort as it develops - expect more soon - PG].
MOST has discovered a great deal of exciting science both in terms of stellar astrophysics and exoplanet research. Perhaps its most famous discovery was the detection of transits of 55 Cancri e, the first naked eye star with a transiting planet (and I think still the only one!). This kind of high-risk high-gain science is perfect for MOST and nothing else really fills the gap right now. [You can read about MOST and 55 Cancri e in A Super-Earth in Transit (and a SETI Digression)].
Let me also tell you about a very exciting observing campaign for MOST from May 13th-May 28th which fits right into that category. In a 15-day continuous staring run, I am leading a campaign to observe Proxima Centauri in order to search for transits. This is the first transit survey of Proxima to date, as far as we are aware, which is quite extraordinary given it is the closest star.
Just think about the possibilities of not only our nearest star having a planet but the unprecedented opportunities for following-up a bright, tiny M-dwarf hosting a transiting rocky planet(s). Any planet found would become everyone’s favorite overnight and JWST would be able to smell the atmosphere quite easily.
But the most compelling reason of all to look for a planet around Proxima is that such a world may provide the impetus needed to build the first interstellar space craft – we could fly there within our lifetimes and send back a photo.
If you need any more icing on the cake, a planet receiving the same insolation as the Earth around Proxima would have an orbital period of about 8.7 days and so our 15-day campaign should see a transit like that too.
originally posted by: Snarl
a reply to: JadeStar
Help me out if I'm too far off here. IIRC, it would take greater than 10,000 years to get there using technology at our disposal today. Puts 4.3 LYs into perspective.
Later studies indicate that the top cruise velocity that can theoretically be achieved by a Teller-Ulam thermonuclear unit powered Orion starship, assuming no fuel is saved for slowing back down, is about 8% to 10% of the speed of light (0.08-0.1c).[2] An atomic (fission) Orion can achieve perhaps 3%-5% of the speed of light. A nuclear pulse drive starship powered by Fusion-antimatter catalyzed nuclear pulse propulsion units would be similarly in the 10% range and pure Matter-antimatter annihilation rockets would be theoretically capable of obtaining a velocity between 50% to 80% of the speed of light. In each case saving fuel for slowing down halves the max. speed. The concept of using a magnetic sail to decelerate the spacecraft as it approaches its destination has been discussed as an alternative to using propellant, this would allow the ship to travel near the maximum theoretical velocity.[16]
At 0.1c, Orion thermonuclear starships would require a flight time of at least 44 years to reach Alpha Centauri, not counting time needed to reach that speed (about 36 days at constant acceleration of 1g or 9.8 m/s2). At 0.1c, an Orion starship would require 100 years to travel 10 light years. The astronomer Carl Sagan suggested that this would be an excellent use for current stockpiles of nuclear weapons.[17]
originally posted by: Snarl
a reply to: JadeStar
Help me out if I'm too far off here. IIRC, it would take greater than 10,000 years to get there using technology at our disposal today. Puts 4.3 LYs into perspective.
originally posted by: eriktheawful
originally posted by: Snarl
a reply to: JadeStar
Help me out if I'm too far off here. IIRC, it would take greater than 10,000 years to get there using technology at our disposal today. Puts 4.3 LYs into perspective.
Actually, no. Try just under a hundred years.
Project Orion
originally posted by: LABTECH767
a reply to: JadeStar
Now that should be interesting, at 4.35 LY approx it is a red dwarf which may have small rocky planet's, it would be a real eye opener if they actually discover one, I wonder if that star is from the same stella nursery our sun is from or if it could be a lot older.
Often overlooked in favour of it's neighbour's alpha and beta it is very interesting nonetheless and maybe the star that humans or at least our machines are most likely to visit one day if we ever get out that far.
Being a red dwarf though if it formed in the same stella nursery then that means it had less mass density to that part of the nebulae and so a lower probability of planetary formation on a large scale which does not rule out the possible existance of at least a few large asteroid or even moon and maybe earth mass body's but what density will they have.
I look forward to the data they may gather though it takes years to see if there is a transiting body unless it is very close to the star.
If you need any more icing on the cake, a planet receiving the same insolation as the Earth around Proxima would have an orbital period of about 8.7 days and so our 15-day campaign should see a transit like that too. -
originally posted by: Soylent Green Is People
a reply to: JadeStar
However, the transit method relies on a planet actually transiting (passing directly in front of) its star from the viewpoint of Earth. If a planet doesn't transit, then it can't be found using the transit method. Therefore, even if this search finds no planets, that is NOT an indication the Proxima Centauri has no planets -- it could simply be that the ecliptic plane of Proxima Centauri is tilted relative to us in such a way that we will not see those planets transiting.
So while a positive outcome of this search would be exciting, a negative outcome would STILL not yet answer the question as to whether or not Proxima Centauri has planets. Even if the find nothing, that doesn't mean the planets are not there; it would simply mean none of them transited between us and the star.
originally posted by: JadeStar
However there is are several other types of propulsion available today which if thoroughly funded and developed could in fact send a ship there within a human lifetime.
An interstellar probe is not so much a technological/engineering issue as a funding issue.
It would not be cheap, nor would it be the sort of instantaneous trips offered by sci-fi warp drives and the like but we could probably get something up to 10-20% the speed of light which would get us there in 20-40 years.
originally posted by: Rob48
originally posted by: JadeStar
However there is are several other types of propulsion available today which if thoroughly funded and developed could in fact send a ship there within a human lifetime.
An interstellar probe is not so much a technological/engineering issue as a funding issue.
It would not be cheap, nor would it be the sort of instantaneous trips offered by sci-fi warp drives and the like but we could probably get something up to 10-20% the speed of light which would get us there in 20-40 years.
If you are travelling at a significant fraction of c, wouldn't an impact with even a tiny bit of space debris be rather catastrophic?
If a tiny fleck of paint can do this to a window of the Space Shuttle, travelling at a relative snail's pace:
then how will interstellar craft have to be shielded?
It would be helpful if space were a bit more empty. A key problem facing an interstellar probe would be encounters with dust in the planetary system it leaves and, as it reaches cruising speed, dust impact in space between the stars. Although our Solar System seems to be in an unusually sparse pocket of space, the galaxy-wide distribution of hydrogen is roughly one atom per cubic centimeter. Dust — bits of carbon, ice, iron compounds, and silicates — is far rarer still, but enough of a factor to a ship moving at a significant fraction of the speed of light that the designers of the Project Daedalus craft built in a payload shield 32-meters in radius to protect their starship.
Collision with interstellar dust becomes a major issue when you’re traveling at speeds like these, a fact Andrews is quick to quantify. For a starship moving at 0.3 c, a typical grain of carbonaceous dust about a tenth of a micron in diameter should have a relative kinetic energy of 37,500,000 GeV. Our hypothetical star mission with human crew moving at a substantial fraction of light speed will run into about thirteen of these dust particles every second over every square meter of frontal area.
Back to Daedalus, which was designed to move at 12 percent of lightspeed for the fifty year journey to Barnard’s Star. Along with its beryllium shield for the cruise phase, Daedalus would have needed additional protection for the stellar encounter, which designer Alan Bond suggested could take the form of a cloud of dust deployed from the main vehicle, heating and vaporizing any larger particles before they could damage the payload. And because Daedalus would deploy smaller probes within the system, each would need a cloud of its own.
Gregory Matloff and Eugene Mallove once suggested that a starship could use, in addition to a shield, a high-powered beamed energy device to destroy or deflect any larger objects in its path. So the options for interstellar protection are slowly being placed on the table. But first we have to learn more about the nature of the problem, which means studies like these that tell us how dust forms in the first place.
originally posted by: ScientiaFortisDefendit
Really? You'd think that's where they woulda STARTED looking.
Where do I get my scientist card?