NASA's 100-Year Starship Project Sets Sights on Interstellar Travel

Originally posted by CoincidenceX
1 million dollars is NOT going to get you far in a Space program....

It sounds like the 1 million is just for the 'study' of the program, to evaluate the 'business model'(How to make it profitable & feasible). Not actually puttng people in space.

reply to post by guohua


Cool..>Thanks!!!

after viewing this thread, I googled interesting facts, like how long would it take to get to the nearest planet, star, galaxy...

I have a fascination with the Andromeda galaxy and love learning interesting facts about it.

Now THAT"S AN INCREDIBLE UNIMAGINABLE distance : 2.3 MILLION light years, or 7.37 trillion years in modern spacecraft.

Damn

reply to post by SPACEYstranger


well it is....... just like it would be time to evacuate the area of a location where a volcano is about to explode

Originally posted by TheRephaim

Originally posted by CoincidenceX
1 million dollars is NOT going to get you far in a Space program....

It sounds like the 1 million is just for the 'study' of the program, to evaluate the 'business model'(How to make it profitable & feasible). Not actually puttng people in space.

My friend,,, You're correct,, it is, yes it is, but only one million dollars That's not going to go far at all.

If you'd look at some of my links,, there's a very creditable individual that is saying: "The idea is that you take a chunk of space-time and move it," said Marc Millis, former head of NASA's Breakthrough Propulsion Physics Project. "The vehicle inside that bubble thinks that it's not moving at all. It's the space-time that's moving."
Source: www.space.com...

Mr. Marc Millis, Former head of NASA's Breakthrough Propulsion Physics Project.
I think maybe they needed to keep him employed?

2.3 MILLION light years, or 7.37 trillion years in modern spacecraft.

reply to post by ButterCookie


ButterCookie, That's just unimaginable 7.37 Trillion Years and thats if you don't make a wrong turn at the Big Red Dwarf Star on the left

But here is an idea the British had for a propulsion system in the 70's.
Fusion-based propulsion for the project was made because it is believed to be one of the strong candidates for how the first interstellar missions will be achieved in future decades or centuries hence.
Project Icarus signals a bit of a baton-passing from a BIS-backed star ship appraisal called Daedalus that was done in the late 1970s.

The Project Daedalus theoretical engineering design study took place over three decades ago. In the time since, there have been many advances in science and technology,? said Kelvin Long, a key Icarus designer.

Here's the best part and why we need to be on the Moon:
The Project Daedalus effort of decades ago proposed mining Helium-3 (He3) from the gas giant Jupiter which necessitated a massive space based infrastructure.

Fast forward to today means that the Project Icarus group will re-evaluate this fuel acquisition tactic and consider alternatives - such as mining He3 from Earth?s moon or exhume deuterium from objects in the Oort cloud. Moreover, the assumed Daedalus propellant combination of deuterium and He3 will also be re-examined, as will implosion-driving schemes.

Source:www.space.com...

Come on ATS read these links and I think with your all combined Brain Power Here at ATS, We'll be in Space and Visiting our Neighbors
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/4a2df3c59c6c.jpg[/atsimg]

[Unpiloted Daedalus star probe design was the output from a British Interplanetary Society study completed in the late 1970s.
CREDIT: © David A. Hardy at www.astroart.org

reply to post by guohua


Whoa...Nice link

So, is it that we should be aiming toward the moon or Jupitor to mine for helium, which would aid us into using using starships? I think that is so cool!

Would the propulsion be light speed or near it

hahaha, like they already havnt been to other solar systems, the mongrels

reply to post by guohua


Paul Gilster (centauri dreams) and Marc Millis are one of the few people seriously talking about interstellar travel.

The problem is NASA only thinks about short-term solutions. The only advanced concepts they seem to be interested in are ones based on simple Newtonian action-reaction physics. If we ever want to reach the stars, we need to be exploring propulsion based on exotic physics as opposed to standard chemical-based solutions. We need to get back to the drawing board. The Breakthrough Propulsion Physics program had some great ideas, but everyone lost hope after wasting resources trying to replicate Podkletnov's gravity beam, so they cancelled it.

However, NASA recently did get money to re-instate the institute for advanced concepts as well as a "game changing technology division," so there's still hope. The current state of advanced propulsion physics is summed up quite nicely in the following papers:

New Frontiers in Propulsion Science
Progress in Revolutionary Propulsion Physics

reply to post by GeeGee


GeeGee, Very, Very interesting reading, These two links you've supplied are very informative.
I went on to investigate Dr Yevgeny Podkletnov and his gravity reflection beam at : vladimirkorsakov.blogspot.com...

Yevgeny (Eugene) Podkletnov is a Russian scientist who emigrated to Tampere, Finland and became famous when he asserted that he had found a way to block gravity.
If this had been proven to be true, I think we would be visiting the Stars today.

This topic is not 'Breaking News'. It began October of last year, and there are message threads already for it. Search for "100-year starship".

Give the money to the Indian space program, with the money thrown at NASA India would Colonize the galaxy!

But seriously I can't see NASA pulling this off in 100 years with only 1 million unless they do have some secret tech under there belt they just haven't revealed. Wouldn't the fuel to get the spaceship in space cost more than that?

reply to post by guohua


Yes, this is why I said it was a waste of resources. Even other researchers have tried to contact him for more data but he doesn't respond. It was basically a wild goose chase. It's doubtful that he ever had any intention of getting his experiment replicated.

Now if you were to ask me who deserves funding, I have a few ideas:

James F. Woodward and his Mach effect conjecture (along with Harold White's related QVF/MHD conjecture)
Puthoff, Haisch & Rueda and their ZPF-based gravity/inertia hypothesis
Martin Tajmar and a replication of his frame dragging experiment
Droscher & Hauser EHT experimentation

And probably many others that I can't think of at the moment. The key to the stars is in there somewhere...hopefully.