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)

Dust-density has been calculated and wouldn't be a factor, or could be mitigated eg. "THE INTERACTION OF RELATIVISTIC SPACECRAFTS WITH THE INTERSTELLAR MEDIUM Thiem Hoang, A. Lazarian, Blakesley Burkhart, and Abraham Loeb Draft version August 19, 2016" https://arxiv.org/pdf/1608.05284.pdf (the research however was partly funded by Starshot Breakthrough itself, and might be regarded as a 'golly you guys could actually just pull this off, y'know' study). Certainly the reflectance problem should be conclusive, and the entire article ought to be scrapped. Unfortunately, once a sufficient threshold count of big-wigs and brains signs off on a concept, it achieves a certain immortality, along with Time Travel, Dyson Spheres, the Bussard Ramjet, Hyperloop and so forth. Even Zero-point Free Energy machines and Perpetual Motion refuse to die, so what can you do? Just wait till it stops turning up on Google News feed and gets mothballed here for the next hundred years JohndanR (talk) 18:02, 14 December 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)

I disagree. In fact they are essentially the same concept. Masers vs. lasers is merely a question of frequency domain. The idea of ultra-low mass interstellar probes driven to exceedingly high speeds by fixed energy beams is one that has been around much longer than "Starshot" and this present article is flawed for failing to mention that. At minimum, there should be a link to the Starwisp article here on Wikipedia and some discussion of its similarity to the current idea. And arguably the entire Starwisp article could be folded into this in the context of section on historical background. 2600:1000:B123:10E0:3177:CF68:A0C5:1225 (talk) 19:58, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

Incorrect thinking. There is no evidence this was the precursor to StarShot. Can we merge the Automobile article with Airplane? They both have an internal combustion engine and have wheels.... BatteryIncluded (talk) 21:58, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

No, we can merge ICE automobile with electric automobile. In fact, we already have (see Wikipedia, for, well... Car ). JohndanR (talk) 17:44, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

A cursory Google search for "Starwisp" and "Breakthrough Starshot" doesn't come up with anything relevant on page one. Page two of my search results gives [1], which seems to imply that starwisp is discredited. So from the cursory search, I'm not seeing any mainstream judgement that Starwisp had broken significant ground or merits mention in this particular article. (This doesn't indicate that Starwisp *doesn't* have some sort of scientific priority, just that in the absence of strong documentation it would be seem WP:OR to draw attention to Starwisp in the article text.) Feel free to provide strong sources if you believe otherwise. Rolf H Nelson (talk) 19:53, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

Solar or light sail?

As of [2], the article uses the term "solar sail" (implying propulsion directly from sunlight) when most of the propulsion comes from Earth-based lasers. Is "light sail" or "laser sail" more accurate? cmɢʟee⎆τaʟκ 12:29, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

You are right. In Wikipedia, we use solar sail and light sail as synonyms. We have to look deeper into it if there is a name for sails using laser. The problem is that Breakthrough Initiatives also uses both terms. BatteryIncluded (talk) 13:34, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

Here is another applicable term: beam-powered propulsion. BatteryIncluded (talk) 03:37, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

Proposed merge with StarChip (spacecraft)

Both of the articles are pretty small, and are unlikely to expand in the future. MartinZ02 (talk) 05:37, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

Support. Rolf H Nelson (talk) 22:14, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

Math

A little math would be nice; it's not difficult math. See 'Radiation Pressure'. There you will find: (essentially) force[Newtons]=(2*Watts_of_laser)/speed_of_light. One gigawatt of laser light shining on a perfectly reflective planar one-square-meter-sail weighing 1 gram would experience an acceleration of 6667 meters per second. 2602:30A:2CFC:B1A0:24C3:483A:D2D6:EF93 (talk) 19:10, 8 January 2017 (UTC)