Interstellar destinations

[UmbralRaptor]

5 hours ago, Bill Phil said:

Depends on how you define solar system. There's an Oort cloud, yes, and a Kuiper belt. But we've already seen where over 99% of the mass is.
 

If we go by mass, then why bother with anything besides solar observing (where ~99.8% of it is)?

[insert_name]

4 hours ago, UmbralRaptor said:

If we go by mass, then why bother with anything besides solar observing (where ~99.8% of it is)?

because we don't need interstellar probes to look at a star, and more importantly there is no way that there would be life on a star

[fredinno]

On 4/14/2016 at 6:29 PM, Spaceception said:

With all of the interstellar travel plans underway, where are we going to go? Obviously, Alpha Centauri is going to be the first choice because it's the closest and will take the shortest time to get there (Assuming you have a decent propulsion system of course), but it's... Boring, Sure we can study a very sunlike star, a slightly smaller sunlike star, and a star that isn't in any way sunlike aside from the fact that it's a star, but any planets it may have will be too hot, or non existent, so when we set out to the stars, so lets go somewhere that's interesting right?

How is it boring? It's a treasure trove, we learn about binary systems, red dwarfs, and orange dwarfs. Only reason you'd not want to go there is that it may not be a good place for life.

[fredinno]

On 4/15/2016 at 3:27 PM, insert_name said:

because we don't need interstellar probes to look at a star, and more importantly there is no way that there would be life on a star

But we can observe a star far better close up. Why else would we be making things like Solar Probe Plus otherwise?

[fredinno]

On 4/14/2016 at 6:29 PM, Spaceception said:

Barnard's star, 5.9 ly away, Red dwarf, possible planets, about 30 years at .2 c

Barnard's is apparently a bad place for life due to being such an old star, but it should be interesting.

On 4/14/2016 at 6:29 PM, Spaceception said:

Alpha Centauri, 4.2 ly away, 3 star system, possible planets around Alpha Cen B, and Proxima, unknown for Alpha Cen A, about 20 years at .2 c

Barnard's star, 5.9 ly away, Red dwarf, possible planets, about 30 years at .2 c

Luhman 16, 6.5 ly away, Brown dwarf binary, about 32 years at .2 c

Sirius 2, 8.6 ly away, White star, with white dwarf companion, about 42 years at .2 c

Epsilon Eridani, 10.5 ly away, sunlike star young system, possibly still in the planet making process, 2 possible cold Jupiter's found, but not confirmed, about 53 years at .2 c

Groombridge 34 AB, 11.6 ly away, Red dwarf binary, 1 known superearth planet, about .042 AU from the habitable zone, about 58 years at .2 c

Epsilon Indi, 11.8 l away, sunlike star likely old enough to have an Earthlike planet with complex life, 2 Brown dwarfs found, about 59 years at .2 c

Tau Ceti, 11.9 ly away, very sunlike star, older than the sun, 5 possible planets, 2 possibly habitable, about 60 years at .2 c

Kapteyn's star, 12.9 ly away, red subdwarf, almost as old as the universe, 2 planets, 1 possibly habitable, ancient life? About 65 years at .2 c

Wolf 1061, 13.8 ly away, red dwarf, 3 planet system, 1 in the habitable zone, about 69 years at .2 c

Gliese 876, 15.2 ly away, red dwarf, 4 planet system, all Jupiter's and Neptune's, with 2 in the habitable zone, earthlike moons? About 76 years at .2 c

Gliese 832, about 16 ly away, red dwarf, 2 planet system, 1 Jupiter like, orbiting far away, the other in the habitable zone, about  80 years at .2 c

Gliese 682, about 17 ly away, red dwarf, 2 planet system, both super earths, one in habitable zone, about 85 years at .2 c

82 G Eridani, about 20 ly away, very sunlike star older than the sun, 3 planet system, all superearths, too hot for life, but still a possibility of an earthlike planet, about 98.55 years at .2 c

Umm, Sirius is a blue star...

and where is Pryocon?

Here is the whole list of stars near the Sun. You should probably update the OP.

 

My list of bad places to go (there are way more interesting bodies than uninteresting ones )

Groombridge 34 AB, 11.6 ly away, Red dwarf binary, 1 known superearth planet, about .042 AU from the habitable zone, about 58 years at .2 c

Gliese 876, 15.2 ly away, red dwarf, 4 planet system, all Jupiter's and Neptune's, with 2 in the habitable zone, earthlike moons? About 76 years at .2 c

Gliese 832, about 16 ly away, red dwarf, 2 planet system, 1 Jupiter like, orbiting far away, the other in the habitable zone, about  80 years at .2 c

 

 

[fredinno]

On 4/14/2016 at 10:38 PM, kerbiloid said:

- Several decades later the humanity may drastically change its understanding of "perspectiveness". For example, closed-loop artificial biomes may make unimportant "habitable zone" idea, while closed-loop resource recycling may drop down any interest in extra-terrestrial mining.

 

On 4/14/2016 at 8:51 PM, Atlas2342 said:

That depends. Manned or a probe?

A 50-year space probe is still bad

On 4/15/2016 at 5:08 AM, Bill Phil said:

Depends on how you define solar system. There's an Oort cloud, yes, and a Kuiper belt. But we've already seen where over 99% of the mass is.
 

99% of the mass is the Sun

That argument is kind of stupid.

Either way, it's not like we have landed on every major moon and landable planet in the solar system. We still have huge shunks of Mars, Venus, Mercury, Ceres, etc to explore. We haven't drilled into any gas giant moon liquid ocean. Hell, we haven't even sent orbiters around Uranus and Neptune, nor have we explored any significant portion of the Asteroid Belt, Oort Cloud, Jupiter Trojans, Centaurs, Vulcanoids, and the Kuiper Belt.

 

We have a lot left to explore.

[Spaceception]

49 minutes ago, fredinno said:

Barnard's is apparently a bad place for life due to being such an old star, but it should be interesting.

My list of bad places to go (there are way more interesting bodies than uninteresting ones )

Gliese 876, 15.2 ly away, red dwarf, 4 planet system, all Jupiter's and Neptune's, with 2 in the habitable zone, earthlike moons? About 76 years at .2 c

? Shouldn't being a old star be good for life?

What's your problem with that system?

48 minutes ago, fredinno said:

Either way, it's not like we have landed on every major moon and landable planet in the solar system. We still have huge shunks of Mars, Venus, Mercury, Ceres, etc to explore. We haven't drilled into any gas giant moon liquid ocean. Hell, we haven't even sent orbiters around Uranus and Neptune, nor have we explored any significant portion of the Asteroid Belt, Oort Cloud, Jupiter Trojans, Centaurs, Vulcanoids, and the Kuiper Belt.

 

We have a lot left to explore.

Starshot could make some of the exploration pretty quick, especially if we have laser arrays to slow down the spacecraft on the other end, and they don't have to travel at .20 c .02 c will be fast enough to send hundreds of probes to explore the entire solar system in 30 years, maybe less.

[fredinno]

3 hours ago, Spaceception said:

4 hours ago, fredinno said:

 

? Shouldn't being a old star be good for life?

What's your problem with that system?

A very old star will be from an era with low metallicity. The chances of a conventional terrestrial planet are much lower. Barnards' may only have iceballs and asteroids, and no planets large enough to form planets, as there are not enough rock-forming Carbon or Silicon to form Earth-sized planets.

Too young is also a problem.

3 hours ago, Spaceception said:

4 hours ago, fredinno said:

 

Starshot could make some of the exploration pretty quick, especially if we have laser arrays to slow down the spacecraft on the other end, and they don't have to travel at .20 c .02 c will be fast enough to send hundreds of probes to explore the entire solar system in 30 years, maybe less.

Only we need massive lasers near the Sun and lenses, and I don't see those made any time soon.

[insert_name]

6 hours ago, fredinno said:

But we can observe a star far better close up. Why else would we be making things like Solar Probe Plus otherwise?

we can observe a star from 1au for almost no cost

[kerbiloid]

On 17.04.2016 at 2:06 AM, Spaceception said:

Shouldn't being a old star be good for life?

Old star → old planets → geologically dead planets and either dissipating or overheated (greenhouse gases) atmosphere, i.e. a crashed balance of a matter circulation.

So, the older the planet → the more primitive lifefroms we can meet.

[Spaceception]

1 minute ago, kerbiloid said:

Old star → old planets → geologically dead planets and either dissipating or overheated (greenhouse gases) atmosphere, i.e. a crashed balance of a matter circulation.

So, the older the planet → the more primitive lifefroms we can meet.

Red dwarfs are very stable after their flare crazy phase, and that may be true for many planets, but the universe is big, we're going to find a lot of extremely old planets that have complex, and maybe even intelligent life.

[Bill Phil]

7 minutes ago, Spaceception said:

Red dwarfs are very stable after their flare crazy phase, and that may be true for many planets, but the universe is big, we're going to find a lot of extremely old planets that have complex, and maybe even intelligent life.

Red dwarfs aren't old stars yet. That's the weird part. If they were they'd have less metalicity than they actually have.

On April 17, 2016 at 6:06 PM, Spaceception said:

? Shouldn't being a old star be good for life?

What's your problem with that system?

Starshot could make some of the exploration pretty quick, especially if we have laser arrays to slow down the spacecraft on the other end, and they don't have to travel at .20 c .02 c will be fast enough to send hundreds of probes to explore the entire solar system in 30 years, maybe less.

An old star is better to some extent. Our sun increases luminosity almost 10% every billion years. A star that is less luminous would have less increase, but also less massive planets...

Edited April 20, 2016 by Bill Phil

[kerbiloid]

Btw if first create planetary intrascopes (opposite to telescopes), this would be much more useful than a starflight and would provide the starflight with much greater reasons.

Edited April 20, 2016 by kerbiloid