Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Incentive Trap 2: Minimizing the Wait Time (to reach interstellar targets)
Centauri Dreams ^ | 5/9/17 | Paul Gilster

Posted on 05/10/2017 1:33:26 AM PDT by LibWhacker

Incentive Trap 2: Minimizing the Wait Time

by Paul Gilster on May 9, 2017

When to launch a starship, given that improvements in technology could lead to a much faster ship passing yours enroute? As we saw yesterday, the problem has been attacked anew by René Heller (Max Planck Institute for Solar System Research), who re-examined a 2006 paper from Andrew Kennedy on the matter. Heller defines what he calls ‘the incentive trap’ this way:

The time to reach interstellar targets is potentially larger than a human lifetime, and so the question arises of whether it is currently reasonable to develop the required technology and to launch the probe. Alternatively, one could effectively save time and wait for technological improvements that enable gains in the interstellar travel speed, which could ultimately result in a later launch with an earlier arrival.

All this reminds me of a conversation I had with Greg Matloff, author of the indispensable The Starflight Handbook (Wiley, 1989) about this matter. We were at Marshall Space Flight Center in 2003 and I was compiling notes for my Centauri Dreams book. I had mentioned A. E. van Vogt’s story “Far Centaurus,” originally published in 1944, in which a crew arrives at Alpha Centauri only to find its system inhabited by humans who launched from Earth centuries later. I alluded to this story yesterday.

Calling it a ‘terrific story,’ Matloff discussed it in terms of Robert Forward’s thinking:

“Bob had a couple of concepts of technological advancement. He had a famous plot of the velocity of human beings versus time. And he said if this is true, and you launch a thousand-year ship today, in a century somebody could fly the same mission in a hundred years. Theyre going to be passed and will probably have to go through customs when they get to Alpha Centauri A-2.”

Customs! Clearly, we’d rather not be on the slow starship that is superseded by new technologies. What Heller and Kennedy before him want to do is to figure out a rational way to decide when to launch. If we make assumptions about the exponential growth in speed over time, we can address the question by adding the time we spend waiting for better technology to the time of the actual journey. We can then calculate a minimum value for this figure based on the growth rates we find in our historical data.

This is how Kennedy came up with a minimum figure of 712 years (from 2006) to reach Barnard’s Star, which is about 6 light years away. The figure would include a long period of waiting for technological improvement as well as the time of the journey itself. Kennedy used a 1.4 percent annual growth in speed in arriving at this figure but, examining 211 years of data on historical speed records, Heller finds a higher annual growth, some 4.72 percent.

From the Penydarren steam locomotive of 1804 to Voyager 1, we see a speed growth of about four orders of magnitude. Growth like this maintained for another 112 years leads to 1 percent of lightspeed.

manchu_starship

Image: A Bussard ramjet in flight, as imagined for ESA’s Innovative Technologies from Science Fiction project. Credit: ESA/Manchu.

But how consistent should we expect the growth in speed over time to be? Heller points out that the introduction of new technologies invariably leads to jumps in speed. We are now in the early stages of conceptualizing the Breakthrough Starshot project, which could create exactly this kind of disruption in the trend. Starshot aims at reaching 20 percent of lightspeed.

Working with the exponential speed doubling law we began with, we would expect that a speed of 20 percent of c would not be achieved until the year 2191. But if Starshot achieves its goal in the anticipated time frame of several decades, its success would see us reaching interstellar speeds much faster than the trends indicate. Starshot, or a project like it, would if successful exert a transformative effect as a driver for interstellar exploration.

We know that speed doubling laws cannot go on forever as we push toward relativistic speeds (we can’t double values higher than 0.5 c). But as we move toward substantial percentages of the speed of light, we see powerful gains in speed as we increase the kinetic energy beamed to a small lightsail like Starshot’s. Thus Heller also presents a model based on the growth of kinetic energy, noting that today the Three Gorges Dam in China can reach power outputs of 22.5 GW. 100 seconds exposure to a beam this powerful would take a small sail probe to speeds of 7.1 percent of c. Further kinetic energy increases could allow relativistic speeds for at least gram-to-kilogram sized probes within a matter of decades.

Usefully, Heller’s calculations also show when we can stop worrying about wait times altogether. The minimum value for the wait plus travel time disappears for targets that we can reach earlier than a critical travel time which he calls the ‘incentive travel time.’ Considered in both relativistic and non-relativistic models, this figure (assuming a doubling of speed every 15 years) works out to be 21.6 years. In Heller’s words, “…targets that we can reach within about 22 yr of travel are not worth waiting for further speed improvements if speed doubles every 15 yr.”

Thus already short travel times mean there is little point in waiting for future speed improvements. And in terms of current thinking about Alpha Centauri missions, Heller notes that there is a critical interstellar speed above which gains in kinetic energy beamed to the probe would not result in smaller wait plus travel times. His equations result in a value of 19.6 percent of c, an interesting number given that Breakthrough Starshot’s baseline is a probe moving at 20 percent of c, for a 20-year travel time. Thus:

In terms of the optimal interstellar velocity for launch, the most nearby interstellar target α Cen will be worthy of sending a space probe as soon as about 20 % c can be achieved because future technological developments will not reduce the travel time by as much as the waiting time increases. This value is in agreement with the 20 % c proposed by Starshot for a journey to α Cen.

We can push this result into an analysis of stars beyond Alpha Centauri. Heller looks at speeds beyond which further speed improvements would not result in reduced wait times for ten of the nearest bright stars. The assumption here would be that Starshot or alternative technologies would be continuously upgraded according to historical trends. Plugging in that assumption, we wind up with speeds as high as 57 percent of lightspeed for 70 Ophiuchi at 16.6 light years.

Thus the conclusion: If something like Breakthrough Starshot’s beaming capabilities become available within 45 years — and assuming that the kinetic energy transferred to the probes it pushes could be increased at the historical rates traced here — then we can reach all ten of the nearest star systems with an interstellar probe within 100 years from today.

Just for fun let me conclude with a snippet from “Far Centaurus.” Here a ship is approaching the ‘slowboat’ that has just discovered that Alpha Centauri has been reached by humans long before. The crew has just puzzled out what happened:

I was sitting in the control chair an hour later when I saw the glint in the darkness. There was a flash of bright silver, that exploded into size. The next instant, an enormous spaceship had matched our velocity less than a mile away.

Blake and I looked at each other. “Did they say,” I said shakily, “that that ship left its hangar ten minutes ago?”

Blake nodded. ‘They can make the trip from Earth to Centauri in three hours,” he said.

I hadn’t heard that before. Something happened inside my brain. “What!” I shouted. “Why, it’s taken us five hund… ” I stopped. I sat there.

“Three hours!” I whispered. “How could we have forgotten human progress?”

The René Heller paper discussed in the last two posts is “Relativistic Generalization of the Incentive Trap of Interstellar Travel with Application to Breakthrough Starshot” (preprint).



TOPICS: Astronomy; Science
KEYWORDS: interstellar; minimize; time; travel
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-51 last
To: LibWhacker

Reading science fiction kind of lost its appeal after my third year of college physics. The laws of physics are a bytch. Interstellar travel is not possible. Should be called science fantasy.


41 posted on 05/10/2017 6:32:26 AM PDT by central_va (I won't be reconstructed and I do not give a damn.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: wyowolf
everything that can be invented, has been invented.

You can't invent something that defies the laws of physics.

42 posted on 05/10/2017 6:46:30 AM PDT by central_va (I won't be reconstructed and I do not give a damn.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: central_va

So all the laws of physics are fully known and understood?? I doubt we even know 1% of what is really possible out there...


43 posted on 05/10/2017 6:55:57 AM PDT by wyowolf (Be ware when the preachers take over the Republican party...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: wyowolf

Ok I have to hope for some scientific break through in relative physics to happen then I have to hope that technology will be invented that can apply that yet fore unknown advance in physics. Yeah, ok.


44 posted on 05/10/2017 7:16:13 AM PDT by central_va (I won't be reconstructed and I do not give a damn.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: central_va

Well, we’re not going to go to Alpha Centauri at 0.99c first time around. Not even close. Radar will be invaluable on these first trips. I don’t know why people even brought up those speeds as a way to prove we’ll never be able to do interstellar travel. I guess they’re just impressed with themselves knocking down straw men.


45 posted on 05/10/2017 7:23:45 AM PDT by LibWhacker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: LibWhacker

I am thinking large rubber band plus warp drive.
It is the combination that makes it work.


46 posted on 05/10/2017 10:03:52 AM PDT by minnesota_bound
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: hopespringseternal

There are many obstacles such as space pigeons that you cannot avoid.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xPCZtrac-Ss


47 posted on 05/10/2017 10:08:10 AM PDT by minnesota_bound
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: wyowolf

#43 Abracadabra is an incantation that will be used in future space travel


48 posted on 05/10/2017 10:10:50 AM PDT by minnesota_bound
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: LibWhacker
The later society may not know about the accomplishments of the earlier society.

Possible but to my mind unlikely.

Such an undertaking would be a major project that would consume a lot of assets. Particularly if it was a Generation Ship.

Such a mission would of historical significance on parallel with the campaign to reach the moon.

Maybe the moon landing will slip in to the obscure facts of history in the; future who can tell. Perhaps it will if trips to the moon become as common as trips to the Grand Canyon.

But I just don’t think it would. If a mission is planned that will duplicate a mission that set out 125 years earlier but had not been completed yet and the new mission will make the trip in 2 years I am fairly confident that some history buff would bring it to the attention of some news writer and it would get public attention.

49 posted on 05/10/2017 3:17:11 PM PDT by Pontiac (The welfare state must fail because it is contrary to human nature and diminishes the human spirit.L)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: jiggyboy

Man, I have been looking for that book forever forever forever....thank you thank you thank you


50 posted on 05/12/2017 1:21:27 AM PDT by TomasUSMC (FIGHT LIKE WW2, WIN LIKE WW2. FIGHT LIKE NAM, FINISH LIKE NAM.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: LibWhacker

Save


51 posted on 05/12/2017 2:17:12 AM PDT by NorseWood
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-51 last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson