Is NASA Covering Up the 100-Year Starship? (just out)

Originally posted by venik88

Originally posted by UnknownSheep
1 million from Darpa? 100k from Nasa? What kind of engine is it, rubber bands and plastic sticks?

While I accept the fact that there may be a plan for a 100 year star ship, it seems to me that 1,100,000 dollars would not be nearly enough to develop the engine. And as far as not coming back from mars, it would be completely possible using the tech that we have now to go to mars and come back for people. If there was a station there, or a colony, you could stay several years and still come back. I don't think the problem with settling mars is the propulsion system of the rocket. I would say that the problem would lie providing enough space in the ship for the astronauts to live comfortably for the six month trip.

As far as colonizing other planets that are not in our solar system, then yes, you would need a star ship like the one proposed. Personally I think the answer lies in nano technology and understanding how to manipulate the self assembling process of matter. Let me cross my front legs, chew on some clover and meditate on it and I'll get baaaa-ck to you.

A new propulsion system would allow for a bigger and cheaper ship. 90% of our rockets are fuel, if we cut that to 80% then we can double the space of the rocket without touching it's actual size.

The apollo 11 mission had the biggest rocket in history, imagine the size you'd need to get to and land something infinitely further away? the moon is 3-4 days trip, mars is 6 months or something.

Also, why's it called the 100-year starship?

edit on 30-10-2010 by venik88 because: to ask question

How many years would it take to get to Gliese?

The main problem of humans possibly establishing a colony on another planet is that the colonizers would still be human... In other words, no matter where we go, humans will self-destruct in the long run because humans are flawed creatures from a survival standpoint. It is our nature and thus the best proof to the lack of any intelligent supreme being.

reply to post by sremmos


Or Alpha Centauri?

It's closer than Gliese isn't it?

I found this update (dated: OCTOBER 29, 2010 ) ...

NASA DISOWNS '100 YEAR STARSHIP'
Nasa has disowned the '100 Year Starship' mission weeks after it was announced by Pete Worden, head of the Ames Nasa research lab, as reported by The First Post. "This is not a Nasa program, there's no money for it," a Nasa spokesman told Nature yesterday. But US government defence agency Darpa, which is contributing $1m to the project, has confirmed a year-long study into "enabling long-distance manned space flight a century from now" exists.

source:
www.thefirstpost.co.uk...
under: "Ten things you need to know today"

id go to the moon to colonize or mars; but only as a colonist not a slave.

I made my mind up after watching the movie Event Horizon. It got me thinking of the possibitlities of living the rest of my life in space or on another planet.

now this part scares me! Event horizon! top film but
i dont think i would want to end up like the crew.

THAT film creeps me out! DO YOU SEE! (quote from film)

I 've thought for a long time that if we have visitors they don't even have a planet they just live on mega ships and travel nomadically around the universe .

I think that's the ultimate end of space travel ,space travel! literally!

why adapt to or settle another planet ?just go there and water or whatever resources you need and move on. Settlement is so messy and dangerous

Originally posted by pajoly
The main problem of humans possibly establishing a colony on another planet is that the colonizers would still be human... In other words, no matter where we go, humans will self-destruct in the long run because humans are flawed creatures from a survival standpoint. It is our nature and thus the best proof to the lack of any intelligent supreme being.

Flawed from a survival standpoint?

I think lasting 200,000 years and through twenty or so ice ages and a rival species kind of throws that argument out the window.

Originally posted by Max_TO
reply to post by anon72

 

Perhaps the real reason that " they " won't be coming back is because the people picked to go on these jurnies will under go some form of gene modification to help them adapt to the alien conditions that they will have to face on these new worlds . Perhaps that's the real tid bit that's being keept secret , and why they won't be coming back ?

edit on 29-10-2010 by Max_TO because: (no reason given)

There are two different projects being quoted here, for some reason. The first is the 100-year ship - a concept analysis and break-down of the design challenges involved with putting people into a generational ship that takes many decades to get to its destination.

The second is talk of colonizing mars, and someone getting confused.

In either case - neither should leave the planet and expect to see Earth again. From the standpoint of colonizing mars - look at how big a rocket has to be here on Earth to get off the ground and into orbit. You're not going to land a team of boyscouts on Mars and have them try and set all of that up to get back. The moon had no atmosphere, 1/6th the gravity of Earth, and is far closer.

We could get to mars. Getting back? Maybe if they survive 50 years and we've seen some serious technology improvements.

reply to post by Aim64C


Excellent observation. And input.

I agree with you. One way is the only way-at this time.

I seriously don't think there would be a lack of volunteers.

One thing for sure, it won't be like Lost In Space (old TV show) where everyone gets off on every planet and can walk off the craft without helment & suits etc. People need to keep that in mind.

Reality rules over fantasy

reply to post by anon72

One thing for sure, it won't be like Lost In Space (old TV show) where everyone gets off on every planet and can walk off the craft without helment & suits etc. People need to keep that in mind.

I "keep that in mind". That's why I vote 'no' on colonizing Mars (and every other rock in this Solar system), and await Kepler to find another Earth to go to.

reply to post by Larryman


it would be way more awesome to live on planets with extreme conditions though=D

Originally posted by sremmos

Originally posted by venik88

Originally posted by UnknownSheep

How many years would it take to get to Gliese?

edit on 3-11-2010 by deathmetalofcourse because: (no reason given)

edit on 3-11-2010 by deathmetalofcourse because: (no reason given)

reply to post by sremmos



Gliese is 20 Light Years away from Earth, this is: 120 trillion miles or 200 trillion km. The fastest artifact we (I mean Humanity) have ever launched into space were the HELIOS probes, 150.000 mph or 250.00 km/h.

So...

800000000000000 hours,

33333333333333 (& a half) days,

91324200913 years


O_O

reply to post by deathmetalofcourse


Yes, but if we have, or have the technology to build, faster engines or drives for ships then the time would be signifcantly reduced. Though I believe that the generational ship would go to the Alpha Centauri system. It's the closest star to ours after all.

This is strangely simillar to Project Serpo, anyone remembers? This also means that if they, supposedly travel to 500,000 light years away, by the time they reach earth again, humanity will be extinct

I think the DARPA/NASA-Ames ’100-yr starship’ meeting is occuring now in California. Marc Millis (founder and manager of NASA's former Breakthrough Physics program) is attending it.

reply to post by anon72


Hrm.. George Kavassilas said that we'd be 'taken' to Mars (one way) because the Earth would seem so unsalvageable.. They already have the tech to get to Mars but them writing out this? Getting the public used to it. There'll probably be a few ships that'll take everyone that falls into the tra.. I mean, go with our 'saviours' to abadon Mother Earth for Mars. Yikes.

Regarding the funding, I know there are several levels of government funding which go something like this:
1 - The project and the $$ involved are public knowledge
2 - The project and the $$ involved are known to congress only
3 - The project is known only to certain members of congress, though the $$ involved is known to all congress
4 - The project is unknown to all congress, though the $$ involved is known
5 - There is recognition of the project's existence, but all knowledge of the content and the funding is totally secret, neither the public nor congress knows anything about the specifics. Public probably doesn't even know it exists, and Congress only knows there is some sort of project. All funding/budgeting is accepted without review and there is no oversight.

Some of these projects can later be revealed via FOIA requests, but only if somebody already has an idea that something might exist. I wouldn't be surprised if there are millions of times more documents and projects, maybe even free to be released under FOIA, but which nobody is aware, and so nobody knows to request those documents.

DARPA and military research is way more advanced than NASA. Hell, private sector space exploration seems more advanced than NASA. NASA is a big joke in my opinion. I mean, they have done some great things surely, but they are kinda just there to absorb all the potshots and be the scapegoat so the real exploration can go on uninterrupted and unquestioned.

I don't believe the Mars intiatives are that secret, Mars500 has been testing the feasibility of human endurance of a one-way trip to Mars since 2009. Whilst I think it's exciting to further our exploration of the solar system, I suspect there is something financially motivating for the investors - most likely advancement of technology for military application earth bound sadly.

sources;
www.esa.int...
en.wikipedia.org...