Star Trek, Star Tech

by | May 24, 2013 | Breakthrough Propulsion | 55 comments

Tau Zero’s founding architect (and the former head of NASA’s Breakthrough Propulsion Physics project) weighs in on the kind of technology we see in the new Star Trek movie and ponders what it would take to make at least some of it real.

by Marc Millis

Another Star Trek film just hit the screen – with the venerable Starship Enterprise and its iconic warp drives and in-flight gravitation. How close are we toward realizing such a fantastic “Starship Enterprise”? How do such visions compare to other starflight pursuits? And finally, what is being done about it?

emvideo-youtube-1DiYeURf3so_0.jpg.pagespeed.ce.UOWxJs4e-W

STARFLIGHT CHALLENGES AND OPTIONS

To send a spacecraft to our nearest neighboring star system (Alpha Centauri is over 4 lys distant) within a human lifespan would require a speed of roughly 1,000 times faster than the Voyager spacecraft. The two Voyager spacecraft were launched by NASA about 3 decades ago, and are just now passing through the edge of our solar system, at a distance of roughly 1/500th of a light year.

To increase speed by a factor of 1,000 requires at least 1,000,000 times more energy, and then at least twice more if you want to stop at the destination. And think about the researchers left behind on Earth, the people who build the equipment and the experiments aboard the starship. Considering that a human lifespan is about 100 years (rough orders of magnitude), they’ll be able to track a mission only out 80 light years or so even if it’s moving close to lightspeed. While that might be enough to reach a habitable planet (whose closest distance estimates span roughly 25-ly – 200-ly), the provisional estimates to reach the nearest civilizations (if there are any) are between 500-ly – 6000-ly. [Click for more destination info]. To reach these more profound destinations within the lifetime of the starship builders back home requires either faster-than-light (FTL) flight, or a much longer human lifespan.

Enterprise_The Light_Works

Image: Star Trek‘s Enterprise, an icon of breakthrough propulsion. Credit: The Light Works (www.thelightworks.com).

Absent FTL flight, most starflight researchers explore probe missions based on foreseeable technology. Armed with estimates of what might be ultimately feasible within existing physics, they determine what further technological advancements would be needed to enable meaningful missions. Early projections suggest that probe missions with flight times of only decades might be possible. To develop that technology and to prepare the supporting systems to collect the energy to launch such missions, however, might take several decades or centuries. Those estimates vary wildly depending on which conclusion is being advocated.

When considering human interstellar flight, the prominent concept is to build self-sustaining world ships that can support many generations of humans on their slow journey to eventually reach habitable planets to colonize, or to just coast through space as isolated pockets of humanity. Not much work has progressed toward this theme, since we still do not know the minimum number of colonists required and the minimum life support to keep them going… including what societal structure can sustain peace and satisfying lives in such isolation for so long.

And finally, for those that want to reach “new worlds, new life, and new civilizations” within short attention spans, further physics advances are required. This includes FTL flight and other breakthroughs typical of the Star Trek visions. This motivation includes the desire to usher in a whole new era of profound technological prowess – new technologies enabled by further advances – targeted advances – in physics. Some have characterized this last approach like the crazy uncle who indulges in wild dreams and playful tinkering.

At this stage it is too early to objectively determine which of these pursuits is ‘best,’ in large part because there is no definition of ‘best.’ The motivations, pros and cons are so varied, and the hard facts still so uncertain, that the choice is more based on personal preference. From those I know who work on these, they seem to pick the version that they, as individuals, can contribute the most to making them happen.

Note – the Build the Enterprise website is not about a true starship, but rather something that just looks like the Enterprise with far, far less capabilities. If you are seeking the realization of the Enterprise, keep reading.

FANTASTICAL STARFLIGHT REQUIREMENTS

Star Trek made starflight look easy and other inspiring fiction contributed to our yearnings. According to Jeff Greenwald, in his 1999 book, Future Perfect, about how Star Trek affected people around the world: “… it fulfills a deep and eternal need for something to believe in: something vast and powerful, yet rational and contemporary. Something that makes sense.”

An important element of Trek that went beyond technology is its society: creating a cooperative culture that can harness the power of starflight without killing themselves in the process. In reality, when considering the potency of the energy required for real starflight, this is critically important. This subject could be book unto itself, and why societal and human aspects are an integral part of contemplating real starflight. Personally, I am concerned that this challenge might turn out to be harder than creating new physics for warp drives and controlling gravity.

Back now to the inspiring spaceflight physics. For fun, and to appeal to a wider fan base, here is a composite of some of the biggest visual inspirations for starflight, our “2001 Millennium Enterprise, C57-D.”

Aldo Spadoni 2001_Millennium_Enterprise_C-57D

Image: The “2001 Millennium Enterprise, C57-D”, a kludge of favorite fictional vehicles: two alien slabs (with FTL transport capability) from 2001, A Space Odyssey; the 1966 Star Trek Enterprise; the 1977 Millennium Falcon (Star Wars); and the 1956 saucer ship C57-D from Forbidden Planet. Graphic courtesy of Aldo Spadoni, 2013, based on a rough sketch from Millis.

Regardless of your favorite fiction, when it comes to enabling such fantastical star flight, here is what we need:

(I) Faster-than-light (FTL) engines: Compared to the distances between stars, lightspeed is actually slow. It takes years for light to travel the distance between stars. Our nearest neighboring star system (Alpha Centauri) is over 4 years away at lightspeed. The nearest habitable planet might be anywhere from 25-ly to 200-ly distant. And to consider meeting new aliens for each week’s episode, our ship would need a naive cruise speed of at least 25,000 times lightspeed. The word ‘naive’ is used here to remind us that we don’t really know what happens to time and space beyond lightspeed. For traditional slower-than-lightspeed flight, Special Relativity tells us what to expect about our perceptions of time and length changes as we get closer to the lightspeed limit.

(II) Control of gravitational and inertial forces: This is a hugely important feature that often gets neglected in shadow of FTL. It is so ubiquitous in science fiction that many people do not even realize it’s there and it has breakthrough implications – plus it does not yet have a cool-sounding name to convey its essence. Picture your favorite fictional starship – where the crew is walking around normally – as if in a studio back on Earth. This means that the ship is providing a gravitational field for the comfort and health of the crew – in the middle of deep space where such fields do not exist. This would be a profound breakthrough!

But wait, there’s more. Given this ability to create acceleration forces inside a spacecraft, it is not much of a leap of imagination to suggest that acceleration forces could be created outside the spacecraft too – thus propelling the spacecraft. This too – a non-rocket space drive – would be a profound breakthrough.

But wait, again there’s more. The physics of being able to manipulate gravitational and inertial forces also implies the ability to have “Tractor Beams” for moving distant objects, and the ability to sense properties of spacetime that we cannot yet even fathom.

(III) Unprecedented energy storage and power usage: Last on our list of top requirements is having enough energy onboard to power our magical FTL engines and space drives. On Star Trek, they use matter-antimatter to provide energy (which is existing physics), by fully converting matter into energy. Think Einstein’s E=mc2. Our fantastical spacecraft – and even some of the technological versions – will need at least that much energy.

ARE WE THERE YET?

In the book The Physics of Star Trek, physicist Lawrence Krauss compared the visions of Trek to contemporary physics. But it did not go far enough. It only compared the methods of Trek to the physics, rather than the overall requirements, and it did not suggest what we can do about it today.

Progress toward Trek-like ambitions is actually being made. Notions of controlling inertial and gravitational forces, plus FTL flight, ceased to be just science fiction decades ago. Here is that legacy of some of pertinent publications:

1963 Induced Gravitation: Forward, R. L. “Guidelines to Antigravity,” in American Journal of Physics, Vol. 31, p. 166-170.

1988 Wormholes: Morris, M. S. & Thorne, K. S. “Wormholes in spacetime and their use for interstellar travel: a tool for teaching general relativity,” American Journal of Physics Vol. 56, p. 395-412.

1994 Warp Drives: Alcubierre, M. “The warp drive: hyper-fast travel within general relativity,” Classical and Quantum Gravity 11, p. L73-L77.

1997 Space Drives: Millis, M. G. “Challenge to Create the Space Drive,” AIAA Journal of Propulsion & Power 13(5), pp. 577-582.

2004 Quantum Vacuum Propulsion: Maclay, J. & Forward, R., “A Gedanken spacecraft that operates using the quantum vacuum (adiabatic Casimir effect),” Foundations of Physics 34(3), p. 477 – 500.

2009 Compilation of Approaches: Millis, M. G. & Davis, Eric. W., Frontiers of Propulsion Science, Vol. 227 of Progress in Astronautics and Aeronautics, (AIAA).

To be clear, this does not mean that these breakthroughs are on the threshold of discovery. What is does mean is that these notions have advanced to where they are now attackable problems. In terms of the scientific method, the first step of ‘defining the problem’ has been completed, the second step of ‘collecting relevant data’ is underway, and some ideas have even matured as far as testing hypotheses.

For those who can handle a graduate-level treatise, the first scholarly book on the topic (scholarly means peer-reviewed, objective, with equations and with traceable citations) was compiled by myself and co-editor, Eric W. Davis, with the help of over a dozen contributing authors, and so many reviewers that I can’t remember. In 2009, this book, Frontiers of Propulsion Science, was published as part of the Progress in Astronautics and Aeronautics series of the American Institute for Aeronautics and Astronautics (AIAA).

For those who want just the executive level summary, here are short descriptions, along with some notes about continuing work. I’ve attempted to convey this sanely, between the extremes of sensationalist hype and pedantic disdain:

• Faster-than-Light Flight: Wormholes and Warp Drives are theoretically possible, but our theory is not yet advanced enough to guide their actual construction. These theories are based on, and consistent with, Einstein’s General Relativity. The ongoing progress (I rely on Eric W. Davis to track this for Tau Zero) mostly focuses on the energy conditions – how to lower the energy required and how to create and apply the required ‘negative energy.’ One conclusion already is that Wormholes are more energy-efficient at creating FTL than the Warp Drive. A recent account of those details is available as:

Eric W. Davis, “Faster-Than-Light Space Warps, Status and Next Steps,” paper AIAA 2012-3860, 48th AIAA/ASME/SAE/ASEE Joint Propulsion Conference & Exhibit, Atlanta, GA, (January 9-12, 2012) (abstract).

Recent news about the work of Harold “Sonny” White at NASA’s Johnson Space Center has been a bit exaggerated, but the essence of the work is that it is an attempt to measure spacetime distortions caused by the presence of negative energy. Unfortunately, I do not have an article to cite about that hypothesis or the methods being used, since such information has not (yet?) been published. Although Eric Davis is tracking this for Tau Zero, even he does not yet know enough to render judgment. We shall have to wait and see, and hope that the information is submitted for rigorous review.

Additionally, Quantum Physics presents some tempting phenomena that might be relevant to FTL pursuits. A number of phenomena, such as ‘tunneling’ and ‘entanglement’ fall under the header of “quantum non-locality” – a term I learned from physicist John Cramer at the University of Washington, Seattle. That term encompasses the notion that quantum events or phenomena can exist over more than one place at the same time. Cramer’s attempt to test the possible time-paradox implications of such phenomena still remains incomplete. The last update I saw was this publication:

J.G. Cramer, K. Hall, B. Parris, and D.B. Pengra, “Status of nonlocal quantum communication test”, Section 7.2, Univ. Washington CENPA Annual Report 2010-2011, April 2011, pp. 94-95.

But wait, still again there’s more. The hot topics of Warp Drives, Wormholes, and ‘Retrocausal Signaling’ are not the only ways to ponder FTL, but they are the only ones in the peer-reviewed literature, so far. For the budding pioneers amidst us, here is a breakout of other ways of pondering FTL:

Millis_FTL-Notions-1024x767

Image (click to enlarge): This diagram points out that there is more than one way to ponder FTL. The items in blue boxes are already in the scientific literature, while the remaining green boxes are some of the playful speculations we have heard along the way. Credit: Marc Millis, from the Tau Zero Foundation site.

• Controlling Inertial and Gravitational Forces (in-flight gravitation for crew comfort, maneuvering the ship without rockets, tractor beams, etc.): More than one way to generate acceleration fields has been published and both methods are theoretically consistent with Einstein’s general relativity [Forward’s 1963 paper cited earlier, and the Levi-Civita effect]. Both of these have daunting theoretical and implementation challenges, similar to Warp Drives and Wormholes.

Similar to the FTL work, there is more than one way to approach this challenge, as shown in this graphic:

Millis_Space-Drive-Investigations

Image (click to enlarge): There is more than one way to ponder how to create a space drive, and these have been sorted by the physics discipline in which each is based. The items in red boxes have been reliable shown to be dead-ends. Credit: Marc Millis, from the Tau Zero Foundation site.

The details behind this diagram, and the next-step research of each approach are available in:

Marc Millis, “Space Drive Physics: Introduction & Next Steps,” JBIS 65, pp. 264-277 (2012). Abstract available.

This is the area that piques my interest, more specifically the “Space Coupling Propulsion” block in that diagram above. I’ve been working on grant proposals to get that work supported – which involves going back to old works of Eddington and Mach, and scalar potentials where relativity is cast in terms of retarded potentials. For those of you who do not speak that level of geek – I’m trying a different approach to understand the coupling between spacetime (inertial frames) and electromagnetism. The work involves the design and test of new sensors, based on those older perspectives.

• Ample On-board Power: Nuclear power is a technological reality now that, if used for spaceflight, would greatly increase the extent of space activities. The power levels required for interstellar flight, even slower-than-light, are still beyond the accrued prowess of humanity, but optimistic trends suggest they might be achievable sooner than later. The power levels required for faster-than-light (FTL) were once astronomically high, but those values have dropped with continued research to where they are now just fantastically daunting.

Are there new ideas to harness vast amounts of energy? There are credible theoretical and experimental approaches to improve our understanding of “quantum vacuum energy,” but this field is still too young to have developed plausible methods of ample energy exchange. What is possible are miniscule energy conversions when dealing with small electrodes. Today, these serve as good tools to empirically explore this young topic in physics, but are not close to suggesting how to achieve the kind of energy levels needed for FTL flight — levels that might be impossible to achieve..

WHAT YOU CAN DO ABOUT IT

If you want to become a practitioner in pursuit of Star Trek-ish spaceflight, you will need a degree in physics, a vivid imagination, steady rigor to work through the details and persevere through the setbacks, and the personal savvy to navigate amidst a world more interested in short-term returns, and sometimes even back to reruns.

For those who would rather support from the sidelines, Tau Zero will gladly accept donations and is now also open for memberships. If, by some chance, you are a generous philanthropist reading this and wondering if we have what it takes to run a whole program around this theme, the answer is “Yes.” I led the NASA project toward such ambitions, including developing the process to sort through proposals to avoid the detriments of pedantic dismissals and the lunatic fringe. Those details are in the last chapter of our Frontiers of Propulsion Science book. We have a network of qualified practitioners who would gladly assist, even if only for a modest honoraria. And if you are a researcher hoping to find funds for this topic, please let us know if you find any. As yet, we do not have enough funds to invite proposals.

Lastly, I should alert you that there are scams out there on these topics. Rather than risk the legalities of explicit names, please take this advice: If they claim amazing performance – don’t believe it. If they offer no test data to back up their claims, ignore them. If the data they offer has not been independently scrutinized, then look elsewhere. Conversely, the promising signs to look for include: The service providers have a track record of confronting these edgy issues in a manner where increments of progress are published in peer-reviewed journals. Quality practitioners are as open to the possibilities that an idea may or might not work, with the emphasis on getting a reliable answer, instead of hyping the claims or being dismissive.

CONNECTING THE DOTS – ONE VISION

This topic is at such an early stage that it is difficult to project into the future to see how these small steps might lead to the desired breakthroughs. To help fill this gap, I have leaped (below) into wild speculation and conjecture – science fiction, if you will.

First: a dose of reality. Consider how nature has been throwing us curve-balls regarding our physical understanding of space and time. Rotating galaxies do not obey Newton or Einstein, but rather these galaxies hold together as if some “dark matter” is keeping their stars within the galaxies. Next, when viewing our most distant spacetime, we see redshifts that suggest that spacetime is expanding faster than theory – as if some “dark energy” or “antigravity force” were accelerating the expansion of spacetime. Quantum physics, with its incredible predictive power and practical utility, also presents us with oddities like the quantum vacuum energy and non-locality. And finally, consider the Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation, whose properties let it serve as an absolute reference frame for motion relative to the mean rest frame of our Universe. This phenomenon is at odds with assumptions that the Michelson-Morley experiment and the very successful Special Relativity seemed to dismiss the notion of an absolute electromagnetic reference frame. In short, physics is not complete. New discoveries await – discoveries that might open the way for whole new classes of technology.

Now, armed with those uncertainties, consider that other perceptions about the relations between space, time, inertia, and electromagnetism might match nature better. For example, what about the older notions of inertial frames from Mach, Eddington’s other way of describing why light bends in a gravitational field, and the retarded potential perspective of deducing magnetism as a relativistic effect of moving charges. By combining these, it might be possible to first detect, and then induce, perturbations of inertial frames. Such transducers – which convert changes in inertial frames into electromagnetic energy – could reveal new phenomena, new waveforms within inertial frames. Those observations then lead to reversing that conversion – where electromagnetic energy is used to perturb inertial frames – creating momentary gradients that move matter.

This ability would be the beginnings of tractor beams and space drives. From there, imagine when those effects get strong enough to create 0-g recreation rooms on Earth, or 1-g habitats for long-duration, deep spaceflight. Powerful enough devices, ‘space drives,’ could propel spaceships faster and faster. As higher speeds are achieved, experiments to test various FTL theories could commence. Perhaps, just one of those theories might lead to the first FTL transport. And finally, with the combination of non-rocket space drives, cabin gravitation for the crew, and light speed travel… we would have our Enterprise.

Ad astra incrementis

Help us start taking some small risks, today, that might eventually escalate to fantastic starflight – enabling humanity to survive and thrive across the galaxy.

tzf_img_post

Posting Problems

by | May 18, 2013 | Culture and Society | 18 comments

Marc Millis’ article “Star Trek, Star Tech,” posted on Friday, has been taken down temporarily due to server problems that are now being investigated. As soon as I get these ongoing site maintenance issues resolved, the article will be reposted.

The Enzmann Solution

by | May 16, 2013 | Advanced Rocketry | 16 comments

Yesterday I remarked on how many more tools for exoplanet discovery we have today than were available to Harry Stine when he wrote “A Program for Star Flight” in 1973. That same day came the disheartening news that the Kepler mission has been stopped in its tracks by an equipment malfunction. But take heart — a vast amount of data already gathered by Kepler remains to be studied, meaning we’ll be getting Kepler discoveries for some time to come. The Kepler news also sharpens our focus on TESS (Transiting Exoplanet Survey Satellite), which will build our catalog of nearby stars hosting exoplanets, with launch now scheduled for 2017.

harry_stine

For more on Kepler, see Dennis Overbye’s Breakdown Imperils NASA’s Hunt for Other Earths. But back to Stine, who in 1973 was hunting not only for target exoplanets but also for a propulsion system that would get a human crew to them. He was evidently familiar with Eugen Sänger’s papers on photon rockets, in which the German designer proposed deflecting the gamma rays produced by the annihilation of matter with antimatter to produce thrust. But Sänger’s ideas depended on tuning the gamma ray photons into a directed beam, something that no one could figure out how to do. Stine pondered the idea but rejected it.

Image: Author and rocketeer G. Harry Stine. Credit: New Mexico Museum of Space History.

And although George Marx and Robert Forward had already been examining pushing a large sail with a laser (Forward’s work went back to the early 1960s), Stine seems unaware of it. In any case, he was a rocket man, and it was perhaps inevitable that it would be Project Orion that drew his attention. Nuclear pulse propulsion would detonate a fission bomb behind the vehicle to drive it forward, using enormous shock absorbers to cushion the craft. Theoretical work led by Ted Taylor showed that the principle was sound, and simple tests using chemical explosives were conducted near San Diego, but the Nuclear Test Ban Treaty ended the project in 1963.

I mentioned yesterday that Freeman Dyson, a major player in the Orion research, would go on to publish a 1968 paper that took Orion to the next level, using thermonuclear devices to drive the spacecraft. Dyson’s ultimate craft was capable of speeds of 10,000 kilometers per second, enabling a mission to Alpha Centauri with deceleration at the destination in 130 years. I imagine it was Dyson’s starship that fired the imagination of Robert Duncan-Enzmann, then at Raytheon Corporation, leading to a modified and extended Orion that Stine would use in his article.

Adam Crowl, working with Kelvin Long and Richard Obousy, has produced an excellent overview of the Enzmann design that appeared in the Journal of the British Interplanetary Society last year (reference below). What I’m doing here is looking at Stine’s use of Enzmann as reflected in his Analog article, in which he foresees fleets of Enzmann starships dispatched in a regular pattern of interstellar exploration. The Enzmann vessel is distinctive, as the illustration below shows, a long cylinder capped by a 1000-foot sphere made up of 12 million tons of frozen deuterium, the fuel for its eight Orion-style propulsion modules.

EnzmannHardy

Image: The Enzmann starship as envisioned by the space artist David Hardy. This painting was commissioned by Kelvin Long in 2011 to depict a scene Hardy had first painted in the 1970s.

This was one big vessel, a cylinder 300 feet in diameter and 1000 feet long. Stine points out that a Saturn V without the Apollo escape tower would lie sideways inside this cylinder, which contains nearly a half-million cubic feet of living space. The Empire State Building, New York’s iconic symbol, would fit lengthwise easily enough with just its top tower sticking out the end. But the Enzmann vessel wasn’t, in many ways, a single ship. Stine explains:

The cylindrical portion is made up of three identical cylindrical modules docked end to end. Each module is completely self-sufficient with its own auxiliary nuclear power plant, a closed ecological life support system, living quarters, communication equipment, repair shops, storage holds, and EVA landing craft.

Each drum-like module is built upon a central core 50 feet in diameter and 300 feet long. Covering this backbone are eight decks of sub-modules each measuring 10 feet by 10 feet by 23 feet. These sub-modules are used as living quarters, storerooms, laboratories, and recreational areas by the human crew. Each of the drum-like modules has 700 of the smaller sub-modules.

And so on. The Enzmann starship, during the long coasting part of its journey, would be spun-up around its longitudinal axis to provide artificial gravity for the people on board. Enzmann thought a crew of 200 would be about right, with plenty of room for growth to an optimum population of 2000, a figure that balances against the closed-cycle ecology of the ship. Preserving the balance of population around this figure leads to what Stine calls ‘fascinating problems in applied social engineering.’ Indeed. This is, in fact, perhaps the biggest unknown variable of the mission.

Because Stine thought in terms of ships traveling together, his ultimate expedition would be about the size of a small city of 20,000 or so dispersed through ten starships. Modules and sub-modules could be disassembled during cruise if necessary and attached to another ship, with all parts designed to be interchangeable. Each ‘star fleet’ would launch what Stine called ‘metaprobes’ to move ahead of the main body for advanced reconnoitering of the target.

I mentioned at the outset of this series on 1970s starship projects that among some designers, at least, it was a time of immense optimism. We saw that in Bob Forward’s aggressively ambitious plan for exploration as presented to a subcommittee of the U.S. House. We also see it in spades in Stine’s thinking, making this theme a good note on which to close. Stine believed interstellar travel was possible through the laws of known physics and that it would not involve one-way trips but continued waves of exploration with frequent return to Earth. He goes on:

For expeditions out to about eight light-years, the original crew has a very good chance of returning; with advances in geriatrics and longevity research, we may have a synergistic relationship here that would make star flight out to quite respectable distances something that could be accomplished within a single lifetime. Naturally, some people aren’t ever going to come back to Earth again, but things like that seldom stop motivated people. My own ancestors never saw their native Germany again after making a short 3,000-mile sea voyage a couple of hundred years ago; but I’ve been back several times. In fact, our intrepid interstellar explorers stand a much better chance of getting there and getting back than many terrestrial explorers up to and including Twentieth Century men.

What an era. To Stine, the 1970s in relation to starflight looked like a time that paralleled the 1930s, when the first experiments in rocketry were producing results and we were learning how to reach into the stratosphere. He thought starflight was a mere 40 or so years away, a sentiment that seems all too naïve today given the amounts of energy that would need to be produced, but one that by its fierce commitment to the future can still be inspiring. We will do well to try to keep Stine’s enthusiasm alive even as we tackle the vast propulsion challenges that confront us.

For more on the designs of Robert Duncan-Enzmann, see Crowl, Long and Obousy, “The Enzmann Starship: History & Engineering Appraisal,” JBIS Vol. 65, No. 6 (June, 2012).

tzf_img_post

Harry Stine: Building the Infrastructure

by | May 15, 2013 | Culture and Society | 10 comments

Before getting started on today’s post, a reminder that Tau Zero founder Marc Millis and I will be among those interviewed on the History Channel show Star Trek: Secrets of the Universe tonight at 10 PM Eastern US time (0200 UTC on Thursday). Many of the ideas discussed on that show parallel those found in Harry Stine’s program for interstellar exploration. Stine drew on the work of Stephen Dole, whose 1964 book Habitable Planets for Man identified 14 stars within a distance of 22 light years in the spectral classes between M2 and F2. Dole thought there was a 43 percent probability of at least one habitable planet around one of these 14 stars, and Stine’s interstellar program began with a series of probes that would investigate them, looking first for gas giants.

The idea is that a gas giant flags the presence of other, smaller planets, key information in Stine’s day. Forty years later, we know how to find gas giants through radial velocity and transit studies. It’s true that ‘hot Jupiters’ are relatively straightforward to find because of their pronounced radial velocity signature, but in coming decades we’ll have the technology in place to characterize entire solar systems using space- and ground-based instruments. Unmanned probes won’t be sent just to send back a ‘ping’ when they find a gas giant, as Stine would have it. They’ll be highly intelligent scientific stations that will give us a continuing presence in the destination system.

Starship_Vittoria_1

Stine, who died in 1997, was a familiar figure in science fiction and rocketry circles in the latter half of the 20th Century. A physics major at the University of Colorado in Boulder, he moved on to work at White Sands Proving Grounds and later became head of the Range Operations Division at the U.S. Naval Ordnance Missile Test Facility. His later career included employment at several aerospace companies in addition to numerous books. At left is the cover of his 1954 novel Starship Through Space, which went into depth on the operations of a star-faring vehicle in every respect save its propulsion system, which remained unexplored.

But propulsion is starflight’s greatest challenge, and two decades later it would be Project Orion that caught Stine’s eye. I have no idea when the first mention of Orion appeared in a science fiction magazine and I’ll ask this site’s resident SF gurus to help me out with this one. But Stine’s 1973 article in Analog is the first non-fiction treatment of Orion I’m aware of in the SF magazines.

Stine was taken with the idea of detonating nuclear or thermonuclear devices behind the craft, cushioning the blow with shock absorbers and using the explosion itself to drive the vehicle forward. He knew, too, that Dandridge Cole had played around with still more efficient nuclear-pulse designs that contained the explosion inside a huge spherical chamber, the benefit here being that venting the explosion through a rocket-like nozzle allows you much higher thrust and specific impulse. Says Stine:

Containing the explosion of a thermonuclear device may be a staggering idea to most people, but to an engineer it is just numbers. Give the idea to an engineer, and he’ll design it with an adequate safety factor and also determine how to make it. Engineers don’t get excited by big numbers or big gadgets.

Well, some engineers don’t, though I know many an engineer who would quail at the thought of building some of the Stine-era concepts routinely discussed by the likes of Cole, Gerard O’Neill and Robert Forward. But Stine seems to have drawn the line at Cole’s ideas, seeing an Orion-like propulsion system built in Earth orbit as the best solution. As to radiation, a 20-year development program of a newly awakened Orion project would give us the expertise to routinely work with nuclear materials in orbit, and a space environment in which, Stine notes, “the average small solar flare burps out more radiation than our largest conceivable thermonuclear device,” would forestall the objection of dangerous side effects to the planet.

Those gas giants I mentioned earlier weren’t to be identified solely because they flagged the presence of smaller worlds. Stine also saw them as what he called ‘interstellar filling stations’ for refueling starships. The point here is that a true program for interstellar exploration has to go beyond one-shot missions. What Stine envisioned was making starflight into a continuing effort of exploration and colonization, and that meant return capability as well as refueling for continuing on to other systems if desired. Although it doesn’t appear in his notes, I’m assuming that Freeman Dyson’s 1968 paper “Interstellar Transport,” which uses the early Orion work as the basis for a thermonuclear, interstellar Orion, played a role in Stine’s thinking.

Putting the Orion technology to work involved interstellar expeditions made up of fleets of between three and ten starships traveling together, on journeys lasting up to 100 years. With multiple target stars, we’re talking about a series of such fleets, each constructed using space-based resources that would feed off the new industries of resource extraction Stine assumed were a logical next step as we moved past the Moon and Mars. In fact, sustaining and growing that kind of infrastructure is in his view one of the reasons for starflight in the first place. See his book The Third Industrial Revolution (Putnam, 1975) for more.

Project Orion, terminated by the Nuclear Test Ban Treaty of 1963, left the concept of nuclear-pulse propulsion hanging, but Robert D. Enzmann, then working at Raytheon Corporation, went on to develop conceptual engineering designs for the starship Orion could become. I’ll close this three part series on Stine’s “A Program for Star Flight” tomorrow with a look at the Enzmann starship, a design that is seeing renewed interest in the interstellar community.

tzf_img_post

A Program for Star Flight

by | May 14, 2013 | Culture and Society | 24 comments

We become so bedazzled by the assumptions of our time that we can forget how things looked in different eras. 1973 wasn’t all that many years ago in the cosmic scheme of things, but the early ’70s were a time of surprising optimism when it came to our future in space. As we saw yesterday, physicist Robert Forward laid out a plan for interstellar expansion to a subcommittee of the U.S. House of Representatives in 1975, even as a thoughtful Michael Michaud worked out his own concepts in a series of papers in the Journal of the British Interplanetary Society. But nudging ahead of both men by a few years was G. Harry Stine.

Already making a name for himself as a science fiction writer under the pseudonym Lee Correy, Stine was a futuristic thinker who fired readers’ imaginations with a cover article in the October, 1973 Analog, an issue whose artwork I reproduce here. Rick Sternbach’s cover caught my eye when I first saw this issue while toiling as a grad student that year, but it was the Stine article, “A Program for Star Flight,” that made me move the magazine to the top of my ‘must read’ list, even though I had little time for reading outside my class work.

analog_197310

Stine wanted to examine starflight by starting with “what we know now or with things that are amenable to engineering development.” This is Bob Forward’s spirit being channeled by Harry Stine, a look for solutions within known physics that pushed engineering as hard as it could be pushed, assuming that future developments would allow the production of the huge amounts of energy demanded. Stine didn’t want to pick up science fiction tropes he considered over the top, like faster-than-light travel or cryo-preservation. He thought in terms of huge ships and trips that lasted for generations.

In most respects, we’re still in the Stine era, in the sense that while we’ve learned a great deal about the stars around us and have made huge advances in computer technology, our basic methods of reaching space — chemical rocketry — are still in place despite the intervening 40 years. Project Icarus exists partly to look at what changes have occurred in this period to make starflight a more practical proposition, but it’s a daunting fact that we’re still trying to light fusion in a sustainable and productive way and we certainly don’t have it yet for propulsion.

Image: Rick Sternbach’s cover art depicting an Enzmann starship, as discussed in Harry Stine’s article.

But it’s interesting to look at Stine in another way. For in this article he lays out a basic justification for going to the stars that emerged at a time when the Apollo program had triggered serious blowback from those who wanted all our resources to be applied to Earth’s problems first. So let’s look at Stine’s list and see how his own rationale for starflight stands up from our vantage point today. I’ll go through all eight of his points in the order presented.

  • Species survival. Stine worried about two things, the most likely being that through our own actions, we might destroy our ecosystem and have to find a new home. The other possibility was that the Sun might show signs of becoming unstable. Today we’d relegate that latter point to a distant future, one far enough out (at least a billion years) that it wouldn’t demand action in the near future. And more than solar instability, we’d be worried about the Sun simply playing out its normal life sequence, warming and eventually swelling into a red giant rather than going nova. On the question of planetary protection from space debris as a motivator for deep space technologies, Stine has no comment.
  • Information. Just before the dawn of the personal computer revolution, Stine believed that information was the key to survival, and that the more of it we had, the better able we would be to thrive as a culture. I tend to think in terms of information being its own reward, with the quest for knowledge being simply hard-wired into our species, but Stine was a more hard-headed individual who saw accumulating data as an insurance policy against future catastrophe.
  • Life search. Stine’s view was that our exploration of the Solar System might reveal life, and that this would be a driver for making us want to search around other stars. Conversely, finding no life might equally become a driver as we looked for further evidence that we were or were not alone. Today we still have no proof of life elsewhere in the Solar System, but we certainly have more targets than Stine did — beyond Mars, we’re looking at Enceladus, Titan, Europa, and even distant Triton, among other possibilities — and a growing understanding that life may be able to emerge in conditions that in Stine’s day would have seemed impossible.
  • Intelligence search. Still no confirmed signal from SETI, and I suspect that Stine would have thought one was likely by now. But he opines that it may take going out to the stars and looking to discover whether or now other civilizations exist. Remember, too, that his was a time without the proliferating population of exoplanets we’re finding with our new tools and techniques, one in which there was still some thought that sending a probe was the only way to observe the planets around other stars. Today we’re expanding SETI to include searches for large-scale engineering (Dyson spheres and more) and each day seems to bring a new exoplanet discovery.
  • Lebensraum. Here it’s hard to say whether Stine sees a crowded and choked Earth getting population relief from starflight — an unlikely scenario — or whether he means that future colonists will have all the room they could imagine for future growth. The latter is obviously true and we can envision substantial settlements moving into the outer system and beyond, but my assumption is that problems of overcrowding on Earth will demand Earth-based solutions.
  • Sociological research. I like this one because Stine is envisioning generation ships with thousands of inhabitants and the ‘laboratories’ of social change they will provide. The point is well-taken, for long before we think about human colonists to the stars we may be looking at large space colonies in artificial habitats. The more of these that appear the greater the spread of human interactions in settings that will become isolated as they move further from the Sun.
  • Ideological reasons. Harking back to the settlement of New England, Stine notes that people are willing to endure hardships to support their various ideologies. Viable colonies in space and, eventually, generation ship possibilities will become a powerful inducement for people to follow their own notions and establish communities that exemplify them.
  • Economics. Here I can imagine several researchers I know who’ve looked hard at the cost of interstellar travel choking — aren’t we talking about trillions of dollars at this point to send spacecraft to the stars? Well, there are somewhat cheaper alternatives, and of course we’re looking for technology advances that can lower the astonishing cost of the energy we’ll need. But when Stine wrote, the profit motive keyed off the history of exploration on our planet and seemed a rational possibility. Today we’d say that turning a profit on an interstellar voyage is perhaps the least likely reason for constructing a starship.

Here’s Stine’s take on the eight items:

These are general reasons, and I won’t attempt to assign priorities to them or even try to guess which one, if any, will be the final justification used. I refuse to do this because I have a built-in cultural bias. I am an American who speaks and thinks in the English language and who has an Anglo-Hellenic cultural heritage. Star flight may be accomplished by another culture for reasons that would seem absurd to Americans. In other words, don’t assume that star flight won’t be done because we have lost our nerve, drive, or ambition — because you are speaking strictly of our culture. When it comes time to go, those who man the starships may be from a renascent culture on the make with fire in their guts.

My own take on Stine’s list is that the earlier items are the main drivers we can identify with today. I’ve mentioned the quest for knowledge for its own sake, a seemingly essential component of human nature. But that needs coupling with species survival. Stine doesn’t go into the matter but I’ve advocated in these pages that building our space infrastructure as a means of planetary protection will inevitably lead to deep space technologies that will boost our expansion beyond the Solar System. If so, our exoplanet discoveries — and particularly finding biomarkers in exoplanet atmospheres, which we may do within a matter of decades — would constitute a compelling reason to put a payload around another star to continue the investigation up close.

tzf_img_post