Timeline for Shortest time to place a probe further than Voyager 1?
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
21 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Oct 9 at 11:28 | answer | added | Daniel R | timeline score: 1 | |
| Dec 12, 2018 at 17:14 | vote | accept | Ryan | ||
| Dec 12, 2018 at 2:50 | comment | added | Saiboogu | How about long baseline interferometry? Or a gravitational lensing telescope using our sun. In both cases, distance is desirable so the faster you can head out the better the science return. | |
| Dec 11, 2018 at 9:31 | answer | added | Hobbes | timeline score: 4 | |
| Dec 7, 2017 at 18:14 | comment | added | Uwe | Is there anything that can be done better with a very fast space probe like Voyager 1 instead of a space probe with similar speed? Getting less pictures of less quality of the outer planets passed close? Is there a chance to get scientific measurement data from a more distant area of the solar system? | |
| Dec 6, 2017 at 10:02 | comment | added | Uwe | @JCRM2: Arbitrarily much money is needed for that arbitrarily large staged propulsion system. But an arbitrarily small probe would send arbitrarily few data back to Earth. The scientific value would be arbitrarily small. | |
| Dec 6, 2017 at 7:16 | review | Close votes | |||
| Dec 9, 2017 at 12:26 | |||||
| Dec 6, 2017 at 7:04 | comment | added | user20636 | Yes we could, but by putting an arbitrarily small probe on on arbitrarily large staged propulsion system assembled in orbit the time taken to overtake is going to be a very vague range. | |
| Dec 6, 2017 at 5:22 | comment | added | Antzi | Very relevant what-if.xkcd.com/38 (answer is 100 to 200 years) | |
| Dec 6, 2017 at 5:18 | history | tweeted | twitter.com/StackSpaceExp/status/938276417049104386 | ||
| Dec 5, 2017 at 23:25 | answer | added | Loren Pechtel | timeline score: 0 | |
| Dec 5, 2017 at 23:07 | answer | added | Russell Borogove | timeline score: 12 | |
| Dec 5, 2017 at 22:29 | comment | added | Dragongeek | @RussellBorogove I agree with you, I interpreted the question as no new discoveries. The breakthrough starshot project would definitely be an engineering challenge though | |
| Dec 5, 2017 at 22:16 | history | edited | Ryan | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
Remove ambiguity between theory & available technology.
|
| Dec 5, 2017 at 22:14 | comment | added | Ryan | That is maybe my fault... my question is a bit ambiguous since I talk about "today's technology" and "no new discoveries needed"... let me think about how to edit my question to remove the ambiguity. | |
| Dec 5, 2017 at 22:12 | comment | added | Russell Borogove | @Dragongeek Very little of the required technology for Breakthrough Starshot exists. All the theory exists but that's not the same thing. | |
| Dec 5, 2017 at 22:03 | comment | added | Ryan | I don't think so... unless this answer is wrong. | |
| Dec 5, 2017 at 21:54 | comment | added | Uwe | A very simple estimate: Voyager 1 is travelling 40 years now, it is 21 billion km away now and each year the distance increases by 540 million km. If we start a probe now that should reach equal distance in 40 years, the necessary speed is about 1 billion km per year. I assumed constant speed and linear path. To double the speed would be very difficult and expensive. | |
| Dec 5, 2017 at 21:54 | comment | added | Dragongeek | Well it's not been tried but all the technology exists for the "breakthrough starshot" project. Look it up | |
| Dec 5, 2017 at 21:43 | review | First posts | |||
| Dec 5, 2017 at 22:10 | |||||
| Dec 5, 2017 at 21:35 | history | asked | Ryan | CC BY-SA 3.0 |