Talk:Breakthrough Starshot

Contested deletion

This article should not be speedily deleted for lack of asserted importance because while this is a newly announced project, it has already received sufficient media coverage to establish notability. It essentially also do not fall under mere WP:Not News --nafSadh did say 23:52, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

Nafsadh, if this is accurate, please cite these sources in the article. --Non-Dropframe _talk 23:54, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

On it. --nafSadh did say 00:00, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

StarChip Speed

The target speed is stated by the Initiative at 20% the speed of light, not 15%. Cheers, BatteryIncluded (talk) 16:08, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

@BatteryIncluded: seems the "Breakthrough Initiatives" reference quotes "up to 100 million miles per hour" in their publication - if the speed of light is "671 million miles per hour", then the speed seems to be about 15% (= 100 million mph/671 million mph), maybe not 20%? - if so, then travel time to the Alpha Centauri star system, 4.37 light years away, would take about 30 years (= 4.37/0.15), not 20 years, to reach the star system? - not clear about this at the moment - comments welcome of course - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 16:24, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

Their LiveStream and home page state 20% speed of light for a 20-year trip: That is also what the mass media are quoting. BatteryIncluded (talk) 16:36, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

@BatteryIncluded: Thank You for replying - yes - seems two "Breakthrough Initiatives" refs may be giving (basically) two different (contradictory?) numbers - seems both can't be right (but both could be wrong?) - maybe more homework is indicated? - Thanks again for replying - and - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 17:03, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

I think simple arithmetic won't give a correct estimate on time due to relativity. Though at 20%, it mustn't affect much. Also note that, the speed won't be constant, they would accelerate up to that speed. Also, it is worth noting, all of these are project goals, not an achieved result. It reminds me, the article needs to address that. --nafSadh did say 22:17, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

Instead of starting a controversy in the introduction, I just wrote the speed range of 20% - 30% the speed of light.

References

Time dilation

Has there been any discussion of how long the mission would last in Earth time? Although it would take a few decades to reach the target, surely many more years will have passed on earth before the probes arrive and send their signal, right? 68.146.233.86 (talk) 22:59, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

Good question. I don't remember the Initiative mentioning anything about that. I'll keep my eyes open. Cheers, BatteryIncluded (talk) 00:31, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

I think this is the opposite. We know the Earth time duration, and the time will be shorter from the spacecraft standpoint. Although, at this speed (c/5), I expect the time compression on board to be quite small, around 2 %. So if the spacecraft takes 30 years to get there, it will take 29 years and 5 months on board, you " save " seven months. Hektor (talk) 15:22, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

Sail would vaporize

100 GW on a sail of a few metres across would vaporize it, no matter how close the reflectivity is to 100 %. The tiniest imperfection or grain of dust would explode. The hole would grow with lightning speed. --Rainald62 (talk) 22:20, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

Reference Starwisp?

I am surprised that this article does not mention Starwisp: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Starwisp 2600:1000:B11C:E4B5:E17E:8927:427B:76AC (talk) 16:33, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

In fact, should the Starwisp article be merged with this one??2600:1000:B11C:E4B5:E17E:8927:427B:76AC (talk) 16:43, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

They are different concepts in different technological contexts (microwave vs. laser). So no, they should not be merged at all. BatteryIncluded (talk) 03:55, 14 September 2016 (UTC)