Re:Just how dangerous is it to travel at 20% the speed of li...
by TheMagician0 on Thursday August 25, 2016 @09:01PM
(#12363629)
Another aspect of the project's challenge is funding. While technically plausible in principle to develop such system, the total funding needed is on the order of $5-10 Billion. There is a relevant discussion about this on [Metaculus](http://www.metaculus.com/questions/208/to-the-stars-1-will-t...), for those who are interested.
Re:Just how dangerous is it to travel at 20% the speed of li...
by scrumper on Wednesday August 24, 2016 @01:53PM
(#12353877)
Charlie Stross wrote recently about the threat of beta radiation to these small probes[1]. This isn't discussed at all in this article or the associated paper[2] which focuses on purely mechanical collision effects. Anyone know if this is a separate consideration for another research group?
Re:Just how dangerous is it to travel at 20% the speed of li...
by T-A on Wednesday August 24, 2016 @03:19PM
(#12354523)
Alpha, not beta (beta radiation is just electrons):
> Roughly 1% of the ISM consists of helium atoms, and we have a technical term for an ionized helium nucleus travelling at roughly 2% of the speed of light—6000km/sec—we call it an alpha particle.
The article pretty much debunks [1] by concluding that heavier atoms do most damage, but are still manageable.
Re:Just how dangerous is it to travel at 20% the speed of li...
by scrumper on Wednesday August 24, 2016 @04:38PM
(#12355074)
Thanks for the correction! Bad memory on my part.
So the article refutes [1] because the relatively easy to manage mechanical effects of those alpha particles on the spacecraft exterior mean that it actually functions as an effective, long-term shield against alpha particles?
Re:Just how dangerous is it to travel at 20% the speed of li...
by noselasd on Wednesday August 24, 2016 @06:42PM
(#12355808)
They mean the physical damage isn't the big issue, but added heat from the collision is - You don't want a spacecraft to accumulate heat - it's hard to get rid of.
[1] http://www.antipope.org/charlie/blog-static/2016/08/san-trom...
[2] http://arxiv.org/pdf/1608.05284v1.pdf
> Roughly 1% of the ISM consists of helium atoms, and we have a technical term for an ionized helium nucleus travelling at roughly 2% of the speed of light—6000km/sec—we call it an alpha particle.
The article pretty much debunks [1] by concluding that heavier atoms do most damage, but are still manageable.
So the article refutes [1] because the relatively easy to manage mechanical effects of those alpha particles on the spacecraft exterior mean that it actually functions as an effective, long-term shield against alpha particles?
Where is the difference? I don't see none except for level of detail.
I would think it's just as dangerous as having something traveling at 20% the speed of light relative to you.