
NASA launches 100-year quest to send humans to the stars - J3L2404
http://www.csmonitor.com/Science/2011/0618/NASA-launches-100-year-quest-to-send-humans-to-the-stars
======
helwr
The trough is too long:
<http://dl.dropbox.com/u/576530/kickstarter/u_shape_full.png>

See "Kickstarter: Shorter project durations lead to higher funding rates":
<http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2684511>

They'd be better off investing in nuclear propulsion R&D on a 5-10 year scale
(Project Rover, phase IV):

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Rover>

~~~
rbanffy
If civilian nuclear power gets replaced by other forms of power generation,
we'd have a surplus of rocket fuel. If present sentiment continues, investing
in nuclear-thermal propulsion could result in something interesting.

Maybe I should start lobbying against nuclear power ;-)

However, before we start, we should have some clear, economically viable,
destinations. An NTR is worthless for launching stuff to orbit and that is
99.999% of what current rockets do. Where it shines is in Earth-Moon ferries
and in planetary exploration.

~~~
juiceandjuice
I did a rough guesstimate, and in order to get a space ship the size of the
Space Shuttle to Alpha Centauri in under 100 years and stop it, you need
probably about 20x10^18 J of energy, assuming roughly 1% efficiency of mass to
kinetic energy propulsion and with minimal effects due to relativity. I don't
think this number is off by more than two orders of magnitude, but it's
probably still much too conservative.

That's a lot of energy, about 10 times more than all nuclear explosions ever.
Close to half your mass would be fuel at 1% efficiency.

------
thebooktocome
Prediction: funding runs dry after five years.

I think only a few religious/academic institutions have managed to have
ambitious projects in the 100-year range.

~~~
Flenser
_I think only a few religious/academic institutions have managed to have
ambitious projects in the 100-year range._

I'd be genuinely interested to hear if you could name any.

~~~
arethuza
Construction of cathedrals often takes a _long_ time - look at the Sagrada
Família in Barcelona, started in 1883 and still being worked on (although it
has been consecrated):

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sagrada_Fam%C3%ADlia>

~~~
groby_b
Meh. That's not even 200 years. Short by Cathedral standards.

Cologne Cathedral: 1248-1880

My favorite example to bring up when my boss complains about schedule overrun
:)

------
perfunctory
When I was a kid I was promised that in the 21st century we would have flying
cars, hotels on Mars and space scouts exploring the galaxy back and forth. I
am in the 21st century now and what do I get ... facebook? They've stolen my
future. I want my future back. Cold war was fun.

~~~
pavel_lishin
> Cold war was fun.

On your side of the curtain, maybe.

~~~
perfunctory
I just meant that human progress seems to be driven by warfare more than by
anything else.

~~~
wlievens
Yeah technologoy has made zero progress since 1991.

 _Sent from my iPhone_

------
indrax
The interesting thing is that they're _not_ asking for innovative ideas about
spaceflight, which you might expect from DARPA.

They're asking for ideas on optimal management and alternative funding for big
long term projects. Spaceflight is just a widget example.

------
jeffool
As great as it is in theory, even agreeing with thebooktocom that it'll likely
not happen... It hurts a bit knowing we'll never settle another planet in my
lifetime.

~~~
arethuza
"in my lifetime"

First invent (effective) immortality _then_ travel to the stars.

~~~
weavejester
I was about to suggest the same approach. Immortality seems an easier problem
to solve than building a starship, and travelling between stars becomes a lot
easier if we're not bothered about bringing our organic bodies along.

~~~
pavel_lishin
> Immortality seems an easier problem to solve than building a starship

Why do you think so?

~~~
weavejester
Immortality is essentially a question of understanding a collection of cells
well enough to transfer their state to a more robust medium. Performing
experiments on cells is relatively cheap, and medical research is generally
very well funded.

On the other hand, a viable starship would require a considerable amount of
energy. We'd need to be comfortable travelling within our own solar system,
because we're not going to get the amount of energy required from Earth. The
best option so far is probably to park some 100km wide solar panels close to
the Sun, store up energy for a year, and then use some rather large laser
beams to convert that energy into a million ton blackhole. We'd then have a
portable generator powerful enough to get us to another star.

So my guess is that we'll figure our immortality long before we can seriously
think about building a starship.

~~~
pavel_lishin
Just because something is cheap and funded, doesn't mean it's easy. That's
like saying, "Math departments get more funding than pottery classes, and
paper and pencils are cheaper than clay, therefore math is obviously easier
than making your mom an ashtray."

~~~
weavejester
There are exceptions to the rule, but in general if performing experiments is
cheap and easy, it's easier to solve a problem than if performing experiments
is a million times more difficult and costly.

------
waratuman
This isn't NASA launching a quest, this is NASA / DARPA asking some else to
take up the quest.

------
jamesshamenski
The citizens equivalent would be to offer a $500,000 dollar prize for the best
idea to figure out how to turn myself into a quadrillionaire.

------
bugsy
You know, $500,000 is less than it costs a developer to buy a decent medium
sized duplex house within reasonable commuting distance to a tech job in San
Jose.

I don't really see $500k as an indication of any serious interest at all. It
might as well be a grant for $37 plus whatever change, lint and gumdrops the
proposal author happened to have in his pocket that day.

------
ghotli
This should reside under the foundation of the long now. Funded by wealthy
visionaries backed by corporations instead of governments.

~~~
ghotli
Downvotes? Care to explain?

------
Joakal
Relevant, Project Icarus (A Joint Tau Zero Foundation & British Interplanetary
Society Initiative): <http://www.icarusinterstellar.org/>

------
DonnyV
I would say spend the money on teleportation using entanglement. That would
probably produce results faster then trying to move a large mass from one side
of the universe to the other.

~~~
weavejester
Quantum teleportation doesn't solve the problem of having to send mass across
the universe.

~~~
DonnyV
Really...whats cheaper and easier to build. A ship to keep people alive for
50yrs or tiny cargo ship to send the other side of the teleporter?

~~~
bellaire
Build me a quantum teleporter, then we can compare masses.

------
thrillgore
Sadly the Space Core's ability to add (and maybe subtract) was removed at
manufacturing. This would set him up for the fall as NASA's first non-human,
albeit humanly insane administrator.

